(COPYRIGHT © 2009 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
The Effect of the Built Environment on Higher Education Learning: A Literature Review
by Mikael Powell, NCARB, Registered Architect, Registered Interior Designer
PhD in Educational Studies Student -Lesley University - Cambridge, Massachusetts
INTRODUCTION
“We shape our buildings, and afterward our buildings shape us” This intuitive remark led Winston Churchill’s debate on the re-building of the House of Commons in 1943. He argued that the shape and layout of the facility could determine the types and quality of communication occurring within and thus have a long-term affect on the United Kingdom. Although Churchill was accurate and insightful as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, it is primarily the purview of psychologists and architects to determine the influence of architecture on human behavior. Within the realm of psychology, contemporary researchers call this interdisciplinary field ‘Place Science” but the roots of these ideas go back to the mid nineteenth century and possibly earlier. Place science is the application of environmental psychology principles that seek to understand the relationship between human behavior and the built environment. Pol (2006, 2007) identifies four stages in the development of environmental psychology from its origins in Germany in the twentieth century, to its migration to America and subsequent architectural emphasis on environmental design to the current movement to environmental sustainability. Common areas of study are way-finding, personal space and territoriality, place identity and, in recent years, environmental social awareness. Traditionally academic professionals have conducted this research with controlled experimentation.
Architectural practitioners researched ways to rate the effectiveness of higher education facilities at the very beginning of the environmental psychology movement as well. That concern was realized mainly in an architectural assessment called a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE). That analysis is a relatively contemporary method (originating around the 1960’s in America) to determine whether design decisions made by design professionals are delivering the performance intended as evaluated by those who use the building. The assessment is intended to provide several benefits from long-term to short-term advantages. Some of these benefits include the identification of spatial problems and successes, the opportunity for user involvement and the establishment of prototypical spaces.
Much of the empirical research on how learning is affected by the built environment (Kaplan 1995)(Reiss 2004)(Yik & Russell 2001)(Rengal 2006)( Kats 2006) (U. S. General Accounting Office Bulletin HEHS-95-61)(Rashid 2008) can be categorized in the following three areas. First are personal responses, which include inherent human qualities of inborn perception of the learning environment and interactions with the space beyond, personal traits and their compatibility to the built environment and individual need for a mood for learning. Second are social and cultural issues perpetuated by the built learning environment in regards to a person’s perception of institutional intention as manifested by the architecture and social responsibility that is presented and encouraged by the space. Lastly, we consider spatial functionality, which is concerned with how the architecture supports the use of the space. This includes the need for environmental comfort for learning and accommodation of pedagogical practices in the learning environment and epistemological congruence with the built environment. Within one’s perception of their physical classroom space there is a determination as to whether the environment supports or impairs the learning process.
PERSONAL RESPONSES TO THE BUILT LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Individuals come into a space with requirements that are intrinsic and basic to the human condition. These needs, when satisfied through architectural amenities, can positively affect the learning process. In addition, a person’s personality in concert with the learning environment can support scholarship. Also, the ambiance created by the built environment can support the acquisition of knowledge. Literature on the effects of the built environment on learning can be sorted into categories of inherent human reactions to educational spaces, personal traits and compatibility with the learning environment and creating and maintaining a mood for learning (Kaplan 1995)(Reiss 2004)(Eich 1995).
Inherent Human Reactions to Educational Spaces
Human beings have an innate attraction to the natural environment. This connection is evidenced by the amount of activities engaged out-of-doors and the importance placed in society for animal ownership. For many millennia, experiences in wildlife terrains and domesticated landscapes were purported to impart personal benefits. Empirical researchers have documented many effects of an individual’s exposure to the natural environment and to animals (Ulrich et al. 1991). Kaplan (1995) explores the restorative benefits of exposure to natural views from the built environment with emphasis on the ‘directed attention’ component of the experience instead of the more popular stress reduction quality.
Directed attention is necessary for stepping back from the situation one is facing, for pausing to get a larger picture of what is going on. Thus without the aid of directed attention, it is difficult to deal with situations in which the appropriate action is not immediately obvious. It is also hard to plan and to follow a plan. This leaves the individual caught up in the demands of the immediate situation, unable to transcend momentary pressures and temptations. (Kaplan, 1995, p. 171)
Windows, when properly placed within the building fenestration, can provide this respite to support learning. They also contribute to other areas in the college experience. Tennessen and Cimprich (1995) studied university students who had natural views from their dormitory windows and co-eds whose windows overlooked buildings. They found those undergraduates who had a vista to landscape scenes from their dorm room scored higher on the Necker Cube Pattern Control measure and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test that rated effective functioning in tasks requiring attention. Kellert remarked:
People continue to rely on positive contact with healthy natural systems for their physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. We have also considered ways to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of modern building construction and practice as well as how to restore beneficial connections between nature and humanity, especially in the modern city. (2005, p. 185)
Kellert describes the positive effect of interactions with the natural environment from architectural spaces as ‘biophilic’. The two basic dimensions of this effect are organic – incorporating nature shapes and forms in the architecture and vernacular, which takes into account, culture, history and geography. Kellert also includes ecological consciousness within his definition of biophilic. Thus, Kellert explains:
Lacking adequate contact and experience of nature, the values remain atrophied or undeveloped, resulting in material, emotional, and intellectual deficits. When adaptively expressed, however, these biophilic values confer diverse physical and psychological advantages, including the greater likelihood of securing basic goods and services, of thinking critically and solving problems, of being creative and discovering, of expressing affection and developing social ties, and even of recognizing and affirming a just and meaningful existence. Each of the biophilic values developed over long periods of evolutionarily time and have persisted into the modern age because they contribute in subtle and complex ways to individual and social fitness in the ongoing struggle to adapt and survive. (2005, p. 5)
Personal Traits and Compatibility with the Learning Environment
Each individual has a collection of qualities and traits that comprise his or her personhood or personality. That personality interacts with the built environment to create an experience that ranges from supportive to detrimental to the individual’s well-being. Augustin (2009) analyzes factors of personality to discover connections with compatibility to the architectural design. In the analysis she studies seven major place-related factors of personality which include how an individual gathers knowledge (introversion/extroversion), processes information (explicit processors/implicit processor), manages life (planner/improviser), reacts to events (environmental sensitivity), directs life ( controls own fate/controlled by fate), monitors others( external monitoring) and seeks exhilaration ( sensation seeking). Each factor of personality affects the kind of physical environment in which an individual can thrive. For example, Augustin (2009) states:
People who are more extroverted relish being in sensory rich spaces with multiple vibrant colors, louder and faster music, more extreme textures, curving paths and dramatic incense. Introverts definitely do not... Introverts prefer to sit in some sort of furniture arrangement that allows them to gracefully look away if they want to break eye contact… An introvert prefers an oblong table to a round one; round tables encourage interpersonal interaction and they make extraverts very happy, but all the forced togetherness can make an introvert tense. (pp. 91-92)
Therefore, variations of tension or ease are byproducts of the fit between an individual and the built environment and furnishings. Reiss (2004, p.188) developed a hypothesis of 16 basic desires along “the tradition of comprehensive personality theories” that can be used to inform Augustin’s theory. Reiss has shown how persons organize their life to satiate these trait motives. See Table 1 for motives, description, how it is exhibited in animals and the intrinsic feeling associated. They are power, curiosity, independence, status, social contact, vengeance, honor, idealism, physical exercise, romance, family, order, eating, acceptance, tranquility and saving. Most of these trait motives can be supported or inhibited by the architecture of the facility. His major hypotheses postulate that people prioritize their desires differently and that “the theory of 16 basic desires holds that what are motivating [for action] are discrepancies between the amount of an intrinsic satisfier that is desired and the amount that was recently experienced”(Reiss 2004, p. 188). Thus, facilities that have a variety of spaces and rooms that are not overbearing tend to favor the accommodation of the motivation brought about by individual traits.
Creating a Mood for Learning
The successful student employs a disposition that supports his or her acquisition of knowledge (Cote1999). Cote studied college students working together on a project and rated both affect and performance. Her findings revealed that the students in a pleasant mood were more successful than students with an unpleasant affect (Cote1999). The architecture of the space is important in that endeavor although not completely dominant. An individual’s personality does affect his or her mood. Yik and Russell (2001, p. 247) state, “One typically feels happy with good news, nervous before a major decision, and relaxed on vacation: Affect obviously can be predicted from the immediate context. What is less obvious is that one’s affect can also be predicted from one’s enduring personality traits”. Thus, the relationship between physical environment, performance and mood is robust. While it seems reasonable to assume that a student might perform better in memorization when he or she is educated and tested in the same room, that hypothesis remains unproven, even allowing for the many peripheral factors involved. Eich (1995) tested event recall in college students located in three different environments (two interior spaces and one partially enclosed garden area) and rated disposition as well. Eich (1995, p. 293) concluded that “these observations imply that place dependent effects are mediated by alterations in affect or mood” and that data indicates “the presence of mood dependent memory”. As Graetz (2006, p. 15) remarks, “As students enter a classroom, they form an impression of that space and experience an associated emotional response”.
Many elements of the built environment affect mood in an individual. Chroma, saturation and intensity of color in finishes and building elements have been known to influence disposition (Valdez & Mehrabian 1994). In a healthcare setting, Zeisel (2003) found that Alzheimer patients had reduced stress and anxiety on a ward that was designed to be ‘home-like’ instead of institutional. In higher education facilities, Anthes reports:
In a 2006 study counselors interviewed 80 university students individually in either a dim or a brightly lit counseling room. The students then completed a questionnaire about their reactions to the interview. The students questioned in the dim room felt more relaxed, viewed the counselor more positively and shared more information about themselves than those counseled in the brighter room did. The findings suggest that dim light helps people to loosen up. (2009, p. 4)
Indeed, Bar and Neta (2007) found that the shape of objects, from everyday items like furniture to novel patterns, could cause a fear reaction in individuals. Contoured items were preferred while sharp items increased amygdala activation in the brain, which indicates fear processing ( See Figure 3). Bar and Neta’s (2007) findings indicate:
Humans like sharp angled objects significantly less than they like objects with a curved contour, and that this bias can stem from an increased sense of threat and danger conveyed by these sharp visual elements. We used objects whose semantic meaning was emotionally neutral, rather than semantically negatively valenced objects (e.g., a knife or a gun), and we know that people do not typically feel explicitly threatened by neutral everyday objects (e.g., a watch or a sofa). Therefore, we propose that the danger conveyed by the sharp-angled stimuli was relatively implicit. Indeed, the amygdala has been shown to respond to implicit, non-conscious cues of threat. (p. 2200)
Therefore, the architectural design for higher education facilities from fixed elements to furniture and fixtures influence mood in individuals.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ISSUES AND THE BUILT LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF UNIVERSITIES
A university building is never arbitrary or static, rather, it is a designed machine created by the institution for the purpose of managing systems. The building architecture and furnishings are a representation of values and customs held by the university. While the built environment guides the actions of its inhabitants, those users proceed through the building and maintain their own value system. The university is contained by and interacts with a larger community and is connected within the fabric of civilization. Literature on the built environments of universities and their social and cultural effects on learning can be compiled into two areas, user’s perception of institutional intention as manifested by the architecture and social responsibility as presented and encouraged by the space.
The Effect of Inferring Institutional Intention on the Learning Environment
It is indisputable in literature that a building says something to its inhabitants (Rengal 2006) (Ching 1975) and those persons are aware of the message that architecture and furnishings relay (Piro 2008). However, the influence that this may have on education is not well documented.
Dutton and Grant (1991, p. 38) maintain that “the built environment has powerful influences that can squelch diversity – especially in the university setting,” and they state that “schooling is a political process that has socio-cultural consequences. Schools can never be understood as neutral sites.” Another university professor, Piro (2008) examines school environments with Foucauldian theory. Piro researches the manifestation of power through surveillance technologies and architectural layout in elementary and secondary schools, saying, “this kind of regulatory control resulted in maintaining power of one group over another"(page 30) and:
For Foucault, school may be a space deliberately designed for supervising, hierarchizing, and rewarding. Under the “scrupulously classificatory eyes of the master,” students are placed in assigned spaces that they cannot leave except on the order of the school inspector (Foucault 1995, page 147). This hierarchizing model continues with the serialization of school subjects. (page 42)
Not all educational buildings, of course, have the perception of institutional control. Christian Kuhn (2005) explores the success of Building 20, formerly erected on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This laboratory facility, was designed in one afternoon by a graduate student and constructed in six months. Although it was originally expected to be a temporary structure it was adapted and renovated several times over fifty years. Kuhn claimed that the building was one of the most prized on campus because of its unpretentiousness.
Devlin (2008) has documented that persons make judgments about forthcoming experiences based solely on the appearance of buildings. Her work demonstrated that persons, after viewing photographic slides of the exterior of medical facilities, made judgments about the quality of care they would receive and how comfortable they would be in that facility. See Figure 5 for examples of the facilities rated highest and lowest for care. Indeed, in earlier research, Arneil and Devlin (2002) concluded that the same assumptions are made viewing images of the interiors of physicians office waiting rooms, “Data indicated that waiting rooms that were well-lit, professional, and colorful and that contained plants, decorations, and magazines were judged higher on the quality-of-care ratings than were those that were perceived as dark, emotionally cold, and unusual looking.”(p. 309). Sadalla and Sheets (1993) found that in residential construction, individuals interpreted the building materials themselves (brick, concrete block, weathered wood, stucco, flagstone, and wooden shingles) as a means to judge creativity, style and social class of the homeowner.
While persons do develop assumptions based on the appearance of the built environment, not much is scientifically explored concerning how performance is influenced by the perception. Piro (2008) remarked that the architectural security layout and surveillance equipment in schools relieved and satisfied parents, but the Mississippi American Federation of Teachers noted, “Issues such as teacher rapport with students, privacy, suppression of academic creativity and spontaneity, and the inability of parents, teachers, and students to view the recordings without a court order have often been suggested as disturbing byproducts” (p.31). Kumar, O’Malley and Johnston (2008) studied high school students in their learning environment. They rated the attractiveness of spaces, amount of display area, level of maintenance, presence of vandalism and amount of unsupervised areas to see if those factors influenced truancy and use of tobacco products, alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs among students. Overall Kumar, O’Malley and Johnston found that “the association of various aspects of the school’s physical environment with students’ problem behaviors is greater for 10th-grade students than for 8th- and 12th-grade students” (p. 480). The researcher hypothesized that community and home influences might affect truancy and use of alcohol and drugs in 8th 9th and 12th graders. They added, “Although this study is based on cross-sectional samples, the significant results for the 10th-grade sample compared to the 8th-grade sample suggest that spending several hours each day in an environment that is not enriching and welcoming takes its toll over time” (Overall Kumar, O’Malley and Johnston 2008, p. 480).
Social Responsibility Embodied by Architecture and its Influence on Learning
The built environment can work in concert with an environmentally conscious curriculum to influence educational outcomes. Place-based environmental conservation education uses the building and its immediate vicinity to provide a laboratory school experience for its students and, in doing so, emphasize the duty to care and maintain the earth. Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont offers an educational experience that is fashioned on a place-based holistic approach that fosters environmental understanding and practice. See Figure 2 for excerpts of their new master plans which include creating centers that enhance the curriculum by grouping building function spaces and outdoor conservation areas. Sobel said the positive effects of this approach “increases academic achievement, helps students develop stronger ties to their community, enhances students’ appreciation for the natural world, and creates a heightened commitment to serving as active, contributing citizens” (2004, p. 7). This situation utilizes the building as opposed to the regional location as the medium affecting learning. It is important to note that this environmental conservation emphasis is a subset of ‘Placed -based education’. Rae and Pearse, (2004) generally describe a place-based approach as drawing “its key messages from the local environment (cultural, physical and historical) and encourag[ing] knowledge sharing between learners and educators based on experience”(p. 3). It relies more on locating an educational facility in an underserved area (Gruenewald 2003) than using the building and it’s amenities to provide positive learning outcomes.
Another way in which the building is a vehicle of social consciousness to affect learning is through building sustainability efforts. One of the most prominent organizations for responsible design and construction is the United States Green Building Council which sponsors the LEED building certification program that they say provides “third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts”. Increasingly federal agencies and municipalities are requiring a level of LEED certification for their building projects. Besides the effect to students from being a vicarious participant in an open, working sustainable environment, researchers have, at least in an indirect way, documented how the building and its systems influence learning outcomes. The attention to designing, installing, monitoring, and documenting building systems in schools have yielded indoor environments that are more efficient and offer better performance. Therefore, Kats (2006) remarks that, “There is a large body of research linking health and productivity with specific building design operation attributes (e.g., indoor air quality and control over work environment, including lighting levels, air flow, humidity, and temperature)”, he adds “ The costs of poor indoor environmental and air quality in schools, including higher absenteeism and increased respiratory ailments, have generally been “hidden” in sick days, lower teacher and staff productivity, lower student motivation, slower learning, lower tests scores, increased medical costs, and lowered lifelong achievement and earnings”. (p. 8)
Lastly, the built environment can influence learning when it reinforces a connection to the community. University administrators see value in creating a sense of place and, according to Chapman (1994), architects and facility planners have been asked to respect the traditional feel of the campus while enhancing communication and fellowship and bringing forth “those qualities that give a campus it’s unique, singular sense of place- the attributes that make a campus meaningful”(p. 12). Devlin et al. (2008) studied the architecture of university residence halls of traditional and contemporary layouts to see if there was a relationship between a sense of community and the architecture of the dorm. Devlin, et al.(2008) noted a significant correlation, in particular “a lower sense of community in dorms that are organized around clusters or suites. At the same time, these units in clusters are judged to be more positive in terms of basic architectural components, including thermal comfort, adequacy of bathrooms, and storage”(p. 487).
The importance of the building in effecting learning outcomes in a social way is evident in Kellert’s (2005) research on restorative environments. Kellert insists that an important part of biophilic values is vernacular design, which tailors "the built environment to the particular physical and cultural places where people live and work” (p. 165). “Building and landscape designs that affirm the spirit of a place reinforce our commitment to and stewardship for these places. Effective vernacular design is the fusion of culture and ecology within a particular biogeographical context” (p. 165).
SPATIAL FUNCTIONALITY
One of the metaphors that can be used for the role of architecture in education is the ‘facilitator’ (Bradley 1996). “When we hire an architect, we try to instill in them just two simple basic facts. If the roof doesn’t leak and the heating and air conditioning work then that is 95% of the problems associated with the building conquered – Al Reaser” (p. 105). Besides those environmental building systems, often hidden within the infrastructure, the building must be stable and arranged to accommodate educational activity. Research on spatial functionality and its influence on learning can be categorized into two groups. The first is concerned with maintaining a comfortable environment. Secondly, the building must support the teaching practices employed and be in alignment with the institution’s theories of knowledge and learning.
Human health and comfort in the learning environment
It is irrefutable that when a university building is not functioning as designed or intended then student learning suffers. There are many systems that operate within a building but some of the major ones that are crucial to maintain an adequate learning environment are Heating, Air Condition and Ventilation (HVAC), Lighting and Sound Control.
HVAC systems control air temperature as well as supplying fresh air and exhausting stale air from a space. The majority of information about environmental comfort concerns pre-K – 12th grade schools. The Environmental Protection Agency (2002) reports that indoor air quality was unsatisfactory in one out of five schools and the number of schools with unsatisfactory ventilation was slightly higher. The EPA (2002) reported:
For students, lower concentrations of carbon dioxide (higher ventilation rates) were associated with higher scores on computerized tests for reaction time. There is a significant relationship between facility condition and student achievement based on test scores in 139 public schools in Milwaukee Wisconsin, in math science language and social studies. A statistically significant reduction in perceived mental performance among students was associated with increased indoor pollutants concentrations and lower ventilation rates. Studies suggest that fluctuations in temperature and humidity can have an impact on comfort and concentration levels of students and staff. Indoor air is perceived to be better when temperature and/or humidity are toward the low end of the comfort zone. While the evidence is mixed it tends to suggest an association between improved performance and lower temperatures within the comfort zone. (p. 6).
Airborne pollutants have been proven to increase health risks and trigger asthma.
In any major facility, the best strategies are developed with design professionals in concert with lighting manufacturers and their representatives. Of course, lack of quality illumination can be detrimental to the learning process but not much is reported on how prevalent that is in higher education. With the rate of innovative changes in technology, trade literature provides current information and strategies.
There is very little relevant, documented information on how noise affects learning in schools. The U.S. General Accounting Office Bulletin “Report on condition of America’ schools” (GAO/HEHS-95-61) in February 1995 note that about a quarter of the nations schools list noise as a major problem. Sutherland, L. and Lubman, D. (2001) indirectly offers:
Educational research studies show that learning is dependent on the ability to communicate with spoken language and that perception of spoken language is the foundation for the ability to read and write. As much as 60% of classroom learning activities typically involve a listening to and participating in spoken communications with the teacher and other students. It would be fully expected therefore that disruption of this communication to affect student scholastic achievement. (p. 8).
Accommodation of Epistemology and Pedagogical Practices in the Learning Environment
When there is not a good fit between the rationality for the building layout and the actual tasks performed within, the learning process is affected. Jamieson (2003) suggests that the traditional physical environment for learning was shaped for didactic instruction. Classrooms were traditionally designed for one-way, formal instruction, which is also in line with a traditional view of how knowledge is acquired. Jamieson (2003) remarks:
These same facilities now threaten to impede the implementation of more student-centered and flexible learning approaches being introduced in higher education worldwide. Recent attempts to create new teaching and learning facilities on university campuses have often resulted in celebrated architecture that has proved to be educationally problematic. (p. 119)
Graetz and Goliber (2002) indicate how architectural layouts and furnishings can support new pedagogical practices influenced by constructivist thinking. Graetz and Goliber (2002) note that successful universities will plan “for small groups of students gathered around tables and engaged in discussion. They will anticipate movement, not just of students and instructors, but of tables, chairs, white boards, data projection, and laptops” (p. 20). Rashid (2008) prepared a white paper for furniture manufacturer Herman Miller, Inc to explore how furniture and arrangement in university classroom affect instructor and student behaviors and learning outcomes. His work utilized two prototypical classrooms – one laid out with desks in a traditional manner statically organized toward the front of the room and an innovative room with moveable tables and chairs with castors. Rashid’s findings indicated that student perceptions of classroom experience were significantly improved in the innovative classroom. In regards to student performance Rashid (2008, p. 29) states, “In the traditional classroom, discussion comments showed significant positive correlation and disruptive behaviors showed significant negative correlation with students’ performance in exam. In the innovative classroom, no behaviors showed any association with students’ performance in the exam”. Rashid concludes however, that learning environments are complex systems so “it is necessary to explore more systematically other potential impacts any physical changes and their interactions may have on learning outcomes” (p. 29).
SUMMARY
This literature review addresses how place affects learning in higher education and is categorized in a way that respects the individual involved in the perception of the environment and the direct relationship to learning in the university setting. Although much is written about how one perceives power and control in school architecture, even without critical interpretation, some researchers are apologists to that regard. Piro (2008) states that:
[It is] probably unfair, to criticize schools because of their focus on control, discipline, and regulation. These features can contribute to the creation of a solid social fabric. Indeed, many of Foucault’s ideas on the struggle for self-freedom against forms of control and discipline have been criticized by some as extreme and anarchic.(p. 47).
Even, if one fully accepts the premise of heavy-handed manipulation by the environment, I still could find no documentation on how those perceptions affect learning. Likewise, I could locate no direct research on how a university student’s performance is affected by expectation of the learning experience based on prejudiced perceptions of the environment. When I reviewed research on environmental comfort and the effect on learning, I discovered it to be either based on workplace environments generalized to an education setting or literature related to elementary education.
My work herewith has led me to postulate that when individuals are asked whether they like their learning environment, their reply is the preponderance of all the personal, social and functional factors presented here. This is indicated in Figure 4. One factor not discussed is the grey tubes in the graph which indicate human adaptation or motivation. I suspect, as Figure 4 illustrates, that for many individuals who rate their space as okay, there is a nonchalant compensation for room shortcomings – moving desks to accommodate group activities or leaning forward to hear the lecture more clearly. These actions may be a duty expected, apart from the responsibilities of the built environment.
So further research is needed to explore the role of user motivation and adaptability in the assessment of the university environment. Also, an exploration of stakeholders involved in higher education – the student, institution and instructor is needed to determine the value and priority that each entity places on the factors presented. Lastly, specific research is needed in the areas outlined where there is a deficit of information on effect of the built environment in the higher education setting.
REFERENCES
Aarts, H., and Dijksterhuis, A. (2003.) The science of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, No. 1, pages 18 – 28.
Abbaszadeh1, S., Zagreus1, L., Lehrer1 D., Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Buildings, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006, Lisbon, Vol. III, pgs. 365-370
Adler, A., (1968). Understanding human nature, Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I, and Gauvain, M. (1981, 1994). A cross-cultural and dialectic analysis of homes, in L.Liben, A. Patterson, and N. Newcombe (eds.) Spatial representation and behavior across the life span, New York: Academic Press, pages 283-320.
Amadeo, D. and Dyck, J. (2003). Activity enhancing arenas of design: A case study of the classroom layout, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20, No. 4, pgs, 323-343.
Amaratunga, D. & Baldry, D. (2001). The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Built Environment: A Question of Method or Epistemology? Refereed paper in the Proceedings of Bizarre Fruit International Postgraduate Conference, The University of Salford, Salford, UK. Pp.129-149.
Anthes, E. (2009). Building Around the Mind, Scientific America Mind, April. New York: Scientific American, Inc.
Augustin, S. (2009) Place Advantage: Applied psychology for interior architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Barker, R.(1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bar, M. and Neta, M. (2007) Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation, Neuropsychologia, 45 pgs. 2191–2200
Becker F., and Steele F., (1995). Workplace by design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bellizzi, J., Crowley, A., Hasty, R. (1983). The effects of color in store design, Journal of Retailing, 59, No. 1 , pgs. 21-45
Berger , P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Penguin.
Bradley, W., (1996) Perceptions about the role of architecture in education. Approved PhD dissertation, University of Virginia.
Calvo-Sotelo, P. (2001) The architecture of higher education University spatial models at the start of the twenty first century, Higher Education Policy, 14 ,pgs. 183–196.
Chapman, M. (1994). social change and American Campus design, Planning for higher education. 22 Spring 1994
Ching, F. (1975) Architecture: Form, Space & Order, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Cote, S. (1999). Affect and performance in organizational settings, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, No. 2, pgs. 65-68.
Devlin, A. S., & Arneill, A. (2003). Health care environments and patient outcomes: A review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 35, 665-694.
Devlin, A. (2008) Judging a Book by Its Cover: Medical Building Facades and Judgments of Care, Environment and Behavior, 40, No. 3, pgs. 307 – 329.
Devlin, A., Donovan, S., Nicolov, A ., Nold, O. Zandan, G. (2008) Residence hall architecture and a sense of community: Everything old is new again., Environment and Behavior, 40, No. 4, pgs. 487 – 521.
Dutton, T., Grant, B. (1991) Campus design and critical pedagogy, Academe; bulletin of the AAUP, 77, 4, pages 37-43.
Eich, E. (1995) Mood as a mediator of place dependent memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, No. 3, pgs. 293 – 308.
Evans, G. and Cohen, S. (1987) Environmental stress. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pgs. 571-610.
Evans, G. and Johnson, D. (2000) Stress and open-office noise, Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 85, No. 5, pgs. 779- 783.
Foucault, M (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books
Franz, G.(2005) An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space, Dissertation at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen and the Bauhaus University, Weimar.
Goffman, E. (1959)The presentation of self in everyday life, Garden city, New York:Doubleday.
Gosling, S., Ko, S., Mannarelli, T., Morris, M. ( 2002) A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, No. 3, pgs. 379-398.
Graetz, K., Goliber, M. (2002) Designing Collaborative Learning Places: Psychological Foundations and New Frontiers, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, Winter.
Gruenewald, D (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32 (4) 3-12.
Halsband, F. (2005) Campuses in place, Places, 17, 1
Hall, E. (1982)The hidden dimension, New York: Anchor books.
Hathaway, W.(1995). Effects of school lighting on physical development and school performance. Journal of Educational Research,88, 4,. pgs. 228 – 241.
Heschong, L. Wright, R. and Okuta, S. (2002). Daylighting impacts on human performance in schools, Journal of Illuminating Engineering Society, 31, pgs. 101-114
Hildebrand G. (1999) The origins of architectural pleasure. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Israel, T. (2003) Some place like home. Chichester, west Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons.
Jamieson, P.(2003) Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers, International Journal for Academic Development, 8, No. 1/2, pg. 119–133
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrated framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, No. 3, pgs. 169 – 182.
Kats, G. (2006) Greening American schools, Retrieved from the website of the United States Green Buildings Council, (12/3/2008), http://usgbc.org.
Kellert, S. (2005) Building for life; Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kluckhohn, F. (1953) Dominant and variant value orientations, in C. Kluckhohn , H. Murray,and D. Scheider ( eds) Personality in Nature, society and culture, New York: Knopf, 342
Kuhn, Christian (2005) Anything goes: Beyond defining what a good school is. Paper from OECD/PEB Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Kumar, R., O’Malley, P., Johnston, L. (2008) Association Between Physical Environment of Secondary Schools and Student Problem Behavior: A national study, 2000-2003, Environment and Behavior, 40, 4, pgs. 455-486
Kuller, R., and Lindsten, C.(1992) “Health and Behavior of Children in Classrooms With and Without Windows.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 305–317.
Lawrence, P. and Nohria, N. (2002) Driven. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Little, B. (1987) Personality and the environment, In D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pgs. 205 - 244.
Mahnke, F. (1996). Color, environment and human response. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Munitz, B., (2004) Place and History Matter on All Campuses, Chronicle of Higher Education,51, 9 pg. 1-5.
Myers, I., MCCaulley, M., Quenk, N., Hammer, A., (2003) MBTI Manual. Mountain View,CA.:CPP
Nasar, J. (1994)Urban design aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 26, 3, pgs. 377 – 401.
Nasar, J. (2000) The Evaluative image of Places. In W. Walsh, K. Craik, and R. Price (eds.),Person-Environment Psychology: New Directions and perspectives. 2nd. Ed. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pgs. 117 – 168.
Nasar, J. (2008) Visual quality by design. Holland, MI: Haworth
O’banion, T., (2007) Creating a new architecture for the learning college, Community College,Journal of Research and Practice, 31, pgs. 713–724.
Piro, Joseph M. (2008) Foucault and the architecture of surveillance: Creating regimes of power in schools, shrines, and society, Educational Studies, 44, pages 30–46.
Pol, E.(2006). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (I): From First Birth to American Transition, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, Vol. 7, 2, pages 95-113.
Pol, E. (2007) Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (II):
From architectural psychology to the challenge of sustainability, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8., 1y2, pages 1 – 28.
Rae, K., Pearse, B. (2004) Value of Place-based Education in the Urban Setting, Presented at Effective Sustainability Education: What Works? Why? Where Next? Linking Research and Practice, 18-20 February 2004, Sydney, Australia
Rapoport, A. ( 2007) some further thoughts on culture and environment. Archnet – International Journal of Architectural Research, 2, 1, pgs. 116 – 39.
Mahbub Rashid (2008) A study of the effects of physical design on learning experience in university classrooms. A white paper submitted to the Herman Miller, Inc.
Reiss, S. (2004) Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic drives Review of General Psychology, 8, 3, pgs. 179 – 193.
Rengal, R (2006) Shaping Interior Spaces, New York: Fairchild.
Rodemann, P. (1999) Patterns in Interior environments. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Russell J.,and Snodgrass A., (1987) Emotions and Environment In D. Stokols and I. Altman(eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons,pgs. 245-281.
Sadalla, E., and Sheets, V. (1993) Symbolism in Building Materials: Self-presentational and cognitive components. Environment and Behavior, 25, 2, pgs. 155-180.
Schein, Edgar (2004) Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlottmann, C. (2005) Introduction: Place-based and Environmental Education, Ethics, Place and Environment, 8, 3, 257–259
Sobel, D. (2004) Place-based Education: Connecting Classrooms and Community .Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society Press.
Sommer, R. (1983). Social design: Creating buildings with people in mind. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work Places: The psychology of the physical environments in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press
Sutherland , L. and Lubman, D. ( 2001). The impact of classroom acoustics on scholastic achievement, 17th Meeting of the International Commission for acoustics, Rome, Italy, September.
Upitis, R. (2007). Four strong schools: Developing a sense of place through school architecture. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(Interlude 1), pgs. 1 – 15.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (2002) Indoor air quality tools for schools program: Benefits of improved air quality in the school environment. Report No. EPA-402-K-02-005. Washington D.C.:IAQ Info Clearinhouse.
Valdez, P. and Mehrabian, A. (1994) Effects of color on emotions, Journal of Experiential Psychology: General, 123, 4. pgs. 394 - 409
Vischer, J. (2005) Space meets status: designing workplace performance. New York: Routledge.
Waxman, L. (2006). The coffee shop: social and physical factors influencing place attachment, Journal of Interior design, 31, 3, pgs 35 – 53.
Wilson, M. (1996) The socialization of architectural preference, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 1, pgs. 33-44.
Wineman , J.,and Serrato, M., (1999) Facility design for high performance teams. In E. sundstrom et al (eds.), Work team effeciveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pgs. 271 –298.
Wise, J. and Hazzard, T. ( 2000) Green buildings, benefits and bionomic design. Archi-tech January, pgs. 24 – 30.
Yik, M. S. M. & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of Affect from the Big Five of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247–277.
Zeisel, J., Silverstein, N., Hyde, J.(2003) Environmental Correlates to Behavioral Health Outcomes in Alzheimer’s Special Care Units, The Gerontologist, 43, No. 5, 697–711.
Annotated Bibliography
Gruenewald, D (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32 (4) 3-12. Mr. Gruenewald posits that critical pedagogy and place-based learning are effective teaching methods and should be combined to increase the educational experience. This article seems to be written for curriculum developers in the hopes of influencing an expansion of place-based educational theory to include ecological and social concerns. The article is well reasoned and supported, however the blatant emphasis does cause one to consider bias in this study toward inciting social change. The author does reference several sources, both domestic and international, with many in higher education. I value this article because it sets the groundwork for ‘place’ in regards to neighborhood or city or classroom.
Jamieson, P. (2003 May/November). Teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8 (1/2) 119–133. Mr. Jamieson offers that the traditional physical environment for learning was shaped for didactic instruction, and the formality of that design stifles the incorporation of new pedagogies within the existing envelope. He cites historical concepts of “form follows function” in regards to present day design and evaluation and offers suggestions for effective, modern, teaching/learning environments. He offers opinion on the development of research into the impact of school infrastructure on student outcomes and behavior for higher education facilities and he states that increasingly university developers play the key role in academic facility development. This article both discusses the design of existing traditional spaces, renovation of existing buildings and development of new facilities. This article is helpful to me because it identifies social and cultural aspects of the university institution in regards to classroom design.
Graetz, K., Goliber, M. (2002) Designing Collaborative Learning Places: Psychological Foundations and New Frontiers, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, Winter. Graetz and Goliber offer insight into the state of university educational design especially in regard to contemporary pedagogies and future prospects involving the incorporation of on-line information delivery to the classroom. They also two examples of successful Collaborative learning spaces- a physical studio in the Ryan C. Harris Learning
Teaching Center at the University of Dayton and an online collaborative ‘virtual’ platform called QuickPlace. It was helpful to me that their article included both broad concepts and specific information about computer software and classroom furniture but, although their reference list is thorough, many of the sources are over 15 years old.
Devlin, A., Donovan, S., Nicolov, A ., Nold, O. Zandan, G. (2008) Residence hall architecture and a sense of community: Everything old is new again., Environment and Behavior, 40, No. 4, pgs. 487 – 521. This research covers many topics that are important in university design. Some of them are perceptions of crowding, status, community, functionality and identity. This study of over 500 college students examined the relationship between a sense of community and the layout of their dormitory (traditional bank with a center corridor or clusters of rooms). Findings indicate that there was a greater sense of community in the traditional style, but the clustered style was thought to be more functional and offer more amenities. The authors surmise that “the traditional corridor design appears to offer opportunities for friendship formation among a larger base of dorm resident” (page 518). An on-line survey program was used to collect data so several variables, including income and specific architectural characteristics of the dorms, can be reviewed.
Devlin, A. (2008) Judging a Book by Its Cover: Medical Building Facades and Judgments of Care, Environment and Behavior, 40, No. 3, pgs. 307 – 329. This research places as its foundation, earlier work on the perception of environments by Goffman (1959), Becker (1977) and even the author’s earlier work that concluded “ people can make judgments about the quality of care they think will be delivered in a physician’s office and the comfort they would feel in that office by looking at a picture of the waiting room of that physician.” (pg. 309). Devlin expands that work by studying the relationship between the exterior appearance of medical buildings and judgments of perceived care and comfort in that facility. Her study examined building types, building costs and expected care and comfort. She found that while most individuals did rate expensive-looking facilities as those that would provided the best care “at the same time, respondents made distinctions between categories of buildings that were not as large, specifically between those labeled Traditional House types and Brick Office types”(page 324).
Piro, Joseph M. (2008) Foucault and the architecture of surveillance: Creating regimes of power in schools, shrines, and society, Educational Studies, 44, pages 30–46. Piro contrasts the work of Michael Foucault in his examination of architecture that embodies power, domination and class. Piro studies school layouts and the contemporary movement towards surveillance as a reaction to 9/11 and the shootings at Columbine high school and then reviews antiquities to show how their design illustrated culture and social standing. His commentary is well-reasoned and apropos to modern times.
Pol, Enric (2007) Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (II):
From architectural psychology to the challenge of sustainability, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8., 1y2, pages 1 – 28. Pol presents a well-sourced review of the field of environmental psychology in four stages. This paper examines the last two parts –from the transition to America from Europe to contemporary times. Pol’s paper begins with what is often termed as the “Second Birth of Environmental Psychology” and it covers the era of architectural psychology in the late 1950’s to the shift toward sustainability.
Pol, Enric (2006). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (I): From First Birth to American Transition, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7, No. 2, pages 95-113. Pol gives a thorough exploration of this field concerned with environment and human behavior from a European perspective. His writing style is factual although, at times, overly colloquial, but that might be a translation issue. He begins in the late 1800’s in Europe where this interest was called environmental psychology and detailed its connection with sociology and social psychology. Pol’s paper ends in the early 1900’s with the introduction of the field of ecological psychology.
Waxman, L. (2006). The coffee shop: social and physical factors influencing place attachment, Journal of Interior design, 31, 3, pgs 35 – 53. This article explores the social and physical factors involved in creating ‘place attachment’ in coffee shops with the idea that fostering connectivity can increase social capital, which is defined as “the connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them”. Waxman tested these variables by using visual documents, observation and behavioral mapping, interview, and survey, researchers found that physical characteristics of the room environment and the social relations allowed encourage place attachment. The researchers also indicated a significant correlation between how long a patron has gone to the coffee shop and how much the customer felt like part of a community and complementarily, the degree of social happiness. The researchers employed varied strategies, which makes this article a great example of mixed-design methodology. Also, Waxman ends with a charge to architects, saying they all have “a role to play in creating spaces that meet human needs and enhance well-being. Part of that thoughtful design must include places and opportunities for connecting with fellow citizens to create a stronger attachment of place and community"(pg.54).
Bradley, W., (1996) Perceptions about the role of architecture in education. Approved PhD dissertation, University of Virginia. Bradley presents a clumsy paper which aims to examine the role of architecture in education as perceived by stakeholders involved in designing schools. Bradley develops metaphors for the role of architecture. They are a facilitator, place, signpost, textbook and agent. Bradley reported that those informants closest to the field of education selected architecture as a ‘facilitator’, that is, the architecture should provide basic operating necessities. He found that those closest to the architecture profession saw the role as a creative ‘place’. He concludes that “the more metaphors incorporated into the facility, the richer the experience.
-end
(COPYRIGHT © 2009 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
