Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................................ v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................................................. 14

3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 37

4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.............................................................................................. 60

5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS....................... 91

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................. 105

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................. 118

A PARTICIPANT LETTER................................................................................................ 119

B CONSENT FORM.............................................................................................................. 120

C INTERVIEW GUIDE 122

D-K PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA.................................................................................... 123-130

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

It’s 9:15 a.m. At the sound of the bell, Ann mobilizes for action, knowing she has just four minutes to make it to the next class. A three-year veteran new to this system, she is a “floater” moving each period to any room vacated by a teacher on planning. But this is second period and every classroom in the overcrowded old three-story building is at capacity. Grabbing her overhead projector and oversized canvas tote bag of supplies, she heads down three flights of stairs to the only available space, a basement storage room under the gymnasium. Entering the sixteen by forty-foot windowless cavern, she flips on the overhead hanging bulbs, aims the overhead projector at the cement-block wall and turns to face thirty-three students seated at makeshift tables and folding chairs. For the next fifty minutes they will strive to do pre-algebra as the Nikes thunder in the gymnasium overhead.

At the same time across town, Mary looks up from her reading lesson to see the Assistant Principal standing at the door of her windowless classroom trailer. The wind and rain have become noticeably louder against the metal building and with just a glance the AP signals to Mary that her class must move to safer quarters. Turning to the twenty-eight students, she directs them to quickly gather their materials. Well-versed in this routine, they assemble the books, pencils, paper and equipment they will need, knowing they won’t soon be back. The mobile classroom is evacuated as the students dash through the pelting rain toward the nearby cafeteria door. Once inside, they join the other trailer refugees, clustering in a corner of the cafeteria where Mary tries to focus their attention again on page eight in their story.

These vignettes are used to illustrate the relationships between a school’s physical environment and the teachers who work in them. Just how important is the classroom setting? What is the role of the physical environment in the teaching-learning process? And how do teachers manage the space in which they have been assigned to teach? The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships between classrooms’ physical environments and the teachers who work in them. Specifically, this study will examine multiple dimensions of the use of classroom space from the point of view of individual teachers in secondary schools.

Most individuals can recall a time when they learned in spite of the setting. Teachers, too, have observed that they could teach anywhere, even under a tree. However, the real issue is whether the student learned and the teacher taught as much or as well as they would have in a better environment. The relationship between school facilities and student achievement is a complex issue with an extensive body of literature. Although research does not show that student performance rises when facilities go from decent to divine, it does show that achievement lags in shabby buildings (Stricherz, 2000).

Clearly, a high-quality learning environment is essential to educating our children. Yet, in spite of the many hours spent in schools, our knowledge of their effects on us and of our ability to affect them is really quite small. Often, we focus on understanding the activities of school while giving little attention to understanding the role that the physical environment plays. School environments have a largely untapped potential as active contributors to the learning process (Taylor, Aldrich, & Vlastos, 1988).

Environmental psychologists have demonstrated that we influence and are influenced by the physical environment that surrounds us. The performance of a given built environment depends not only on its physical characteristics, but also on the interaction of those characteristics with the needs and requirements of its users. Veitch and Arkkelin (1995) concluded:

The efficiency with which humans function is determined in large part by the limitations and proscriptions of the designed environment. Good design, everyone agrees, is that which causes minimal human discomfort and maximum human functioning. (p.316)

If, indeed, activities such as teaching and learning cannot proceed without affecting and being affected by the places in which they occur, then educators would do well to look closely at their classrooms to understand how they can use the environment as a tool in improving instruction and achievement (Gehrke, 1982).

Stokols (1976) presented a useful conceptual framework for analyzing human interaction with the environment. The model suggests three basic modes of transaction: orientation, operation, and evaluation. Orientation refers to the individual’s perception of space, the way they orient toward the environment. Operation processes emphasize the ways in which people act upon and are affected by their surroundings, focusing on an individual’s attempts to shape and use the environment according to their needs. In the final mode, evaluation, people assess the effectiveness of their past behavior and the opportunities afforded by the environment for future goal-attainment. This model is helpful in analyzing how teachers relate to educational space. More specifically, it provides a framework for examining the relatively uncharted relationship between the classrooms’ physical environment and the teachers who work in them.

While teachers and students acknowledge the need for differentiated learning space, research to guide the customization of classrooms is scarce (Duke, 1998). Space is needed for technology, projects, and group work based on the unique needs of different content areas and age levels. Yet, in many schools all teachers are compelled to work in the same type of space. Taking into account new thinking about how students learn, research is needed to help determine how to design classrooms to accommodate a variety of activities (Duke, 1998).

Concomitantly with this call for the study of the use of the classrooms’ physical environment is the realization of the importance of the viewpoint of the individual teacher. Feiman-Nemser & Floden (1986) state that there has been a striking shift “from trying to study the world of teaching as a public, social phenomenon to trying to understand how teachers define their own work situations” (p. 505). There are “too few studies which explore the subjective world of teachers in terms of their conceptions of what is salient” (Lortie, 1973, p. 490).

The individual teacher’s viewpoint is important for a number of reasons. First, as the ones who direct the learning activities of the students, teachers can speak for themselves about the meaning of their work. Next, a teacher’s narrative provides a window through which we can learn more about their intentions and goals and to understand more fully why they do what they do. In addition, because teachers are often the final authority in how curriculum and instruction policies are implemented, knowledge about their perspective can “inform predictions about how teachers are likely to respond and guide efforts to shape those responses” (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986, p. 505). Finally, the understandings and knowledge of teachers can be a source of information for the improvement of education. Sarason (1971) argues “if we have learned anything about the change process, it is the bedrock importance of gaining understanding and support of those who ‘own’ the problem because directly or indirectly they will be affected by what happens” (p.5). Teachers’ perceptions are the raw materials in the measurement of environment, in contrast with the use of direct observation techniques which report the environment from the perspective of the researcher, not the inhabitants (Dorman, 1996).

Statement of the Problem

To meet the challenge of higher standards and higher expectations, students are likely to need as many of the elements of a good educational experience as possible. Elements of a quality education include not only good teachers and up-to-date instructional materials but also a complex array of direct and indirect influences on learning. Although the subject of extensive research, much of the literature on the classroom has focused on social and psychological elements, rather than on the use of the physical environment. It is apparent that this presents an incomplete portrait of the classroom environment (Fraser, 1986; Gehrke, 1982).

Additionally, the research in this area has been concerned with students more than with teachers. Gehrke (1982) states that the relationships between the physical environment of the classroom and the teachers who work in them are relatively unexplored. School environments have a largely untapped potential as active contributors to the learning process (Taylor, Aldrich, & Vlastos, 1988). How teachers perceive classroom space, what they do with the space they have, and how it contributes to effective teaching and learning needs to be further examined.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to understand the relationships between classrooms’ physical environments and the teachers who work in them. More specifically, this study will examine multiple dimensions of the use of classroom space from the point of view of individual teachers at the secondary school level. The study reflects the various dimensions of the classroom environment previously discussed through the examination of teachers’ experiences with: orientation issues (the individual’s perception of space); operation issues (intentions and attempts to shape and use the environment); and evaluation issues (judgments made about the environment).

Setting

This study was conducted in six secondary schools in both rural and urban districts in Georgia. The principal informants were veteran teachers who received National Board Certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), an organization formed in 1988 to offer teachers the equivalent of advanced board certification in medicine. These teachers were interviewed to understand how they use classroom space during instruction, to determine how they enhance the physical environment and to determine how they use classroom space as a resource for learning. Since implementation is essential, teachers’ use of the physical environment was observed for documentation.

Studies of exemplary teachers are valuable sources for models of effective classroom practices. Berliner (1986) strongly advocated the investigation of expert teachers to provide extremely useful case material from which we can learn. Investigations of teachers regarded as exemplary have led to detailed descriptions of teaching and learning and the development of models for what teachers do and why they do what they do. These models provide insight into the conditions associated with teacher change (Tobin & Fraser, in Waxman and Walberg, 1991). Changes aimed at altering the conditions under which teachers labor must be based on realistic descriptions of their work lives (Corcoran, Walker, & White, 1988).

Research Question

The main question explored through this study was: What are the perceptions and experiences of secondary school teachers related to their use of classroom space? These perceptions and experiences were examined in particular with regard to the three modes of: (a) orientation, (b) operation, and (c) evaluation. The following major questions were developed to better understand the teachers’ perspectives:

What is the teacher’s perception of their classroom space?
What are the teacher’s intentions and attempts to shape and use the environment?
What judgments do teachers make about their environment?

Significance of the Study

Although the research on schools’ physical environment is extensive, much of the literature on the classroom has focused on social and psychological elements, rather than on the use of the physical environment. Use of physical space is important in a total learning environment and varies depending on context. Stokols and Altman (1987) describe three reasons to be concerned with the physical environment of the classroom: time and energy conservation, program “authority” and school sameness.

“The human capacity to ‘make do’ with minimal milieu provisions often means that optimum milieu arrangements are not developed” (Stokols & Altman, 1987). Students can discuss mathematics while seated in a room under a gymnasium but should they? Teachers can handle storage problems by walking back and forth to utility rooms down the hall but is that the best use of their time and energy? Although teachers may function adequately in minimally adequate conditions, these conditions may need to be examined or changed to reduce time and energy demands.

Environmental factors that do not conform to some modal value on each of the perceptual dimensions are expensive to live with; we pay for tuning them out by using more energy or by being less effective in our work. (Veitch & Arkkelin, 1995, p. 309)

The qualities and use of instructional space can reflect the value placed on particular educational programs. Stokols and Altman (1987) describe the contribution of certain milieu qualities to the educational program:

The placement of chairs in an inward-facing circle, instead of in row-and-column positions, ‘states’ that discussion is to involve attention to one another’s persons as well as to their verbal statements. Provision of a reading niche instead of books at student’s desks ‘states’ that reading is a valued activity and that it might be attractive or pleasurable. Optimum provisions of place and things can suggest program behaviors and program benefits. (p.703)

Organization of space sends signals to students about how teachers view learning. Yet, teachers do not know much at all about using the environment for curriculum and instruction (Gehrke, 1982).

The day-to-day sameness of milieu conditions in classrooms is well known. The possibility exists that change, for its own sake, can be a stimulating experience. For example, new seating arrangements, introduction of individualized learning stations, and changed learning centers can freshen experience and energize behavior. The capacity of novelty to alert and to arouse curiosity in children is well-established (Stokols & Altman, 1987). It is important to consider how teachers use milieu provisions to plan and implement instruction.

This study is significant in three ways. First, the study examined the use of classroom space from the perspective of the individual teacher with respect to each of the following dimensions: orientation (the individual’s perception of space); operation (intentions and attempts to shape and use the environment); and evaluation (judgments made about the environment). Second, this study focused upon the viewpoints of the teachers directly involved in planning and implementing the use of classroom space. Their viewpoint is often neglected but is critical to understanding how plans and intentions affect the process and consequences of classroom teaching. Third, this study examined the way in which secondary school teachers actually use classroom space, providing a better understanding of how the design of the physical environment can be improved to accommodate students and instructional programs. “The study of the school environment is clearly important because it is likely to contribute to understanding and improvement of the school’s functioning and to satisfaction and productivity within the school” (Templeton & Jensen, 1993).

Theoretical Perspective

The justification of our choice and particular use of methodology and methods is something that reaches into the assumptions about reality that we bring to the work we do. To ask about these assumptions is to ask about our theoretical perspective (Crotty, 1998). According to Goetz and LeCompte (1984), theoretical perspectives, or conceptual frameworks, are those loosely interrelated sets of assumptions, concepts, and propositions that constitute a view of the world that “may structure strongly the questions a researcher asks and the means chosen to answer them” (p.37). It guides researchers in framing their project, determining what kinds of investigations are appropriate, and shaping their analysis. According to Bogdan and Biklen (1998),

Theory helps us to work through the contradictions we learn about. And contradictions take us deeper into the important parts of our data and expand theory. (p. 181)

Theoretical perspective is a way of looking at the world and making sense of it, understanding how we know what we know (Crotty, 1998). The theoretical perspective for this study is based on Symbolic Interactionism. This theory, first enunciated by Charles Horten Cooley, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead (Becker, et al., 1961), is often used synonymously with qualitative research. The theory assumes that human behavior is to be understood as a process in which the person shapes and controls his conduct by taking into account the expectations of others with whom he interacts. At its heart is the notion that we are able to put ourselves in the place of others (Crotty, 1998). In this study it means the researcher must take the emic approach, conveying how things look to the teachers inside the classroom.

Basic to the approach is the assumption that human experience is mediated by interpretation (Blumer,1986). Blumer (in Crotty, 1998) defined three basic symbolic interactionist assumptions:

· That human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that these things have for them;

· That the meaning of such things is derived from, and arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows;

· That these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters (p. 72).

Symbolic interactionists are concerned primarily with the mutually influencing behavior of interacting individuals. It is assumed that people will respond to one another and the environment around them on the basis of the meanings that these things have for them. An individual’s actions are based not on predetermined responses to predefined objects, but rather as interpreters, definers, signalers, and symbol and signal readers. Their behavior can best be understood by having the researcher enter into the defining process through such methods as observation (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).

The methods used by interactionists have been principally qualitative. According to Stryker (1964, cited in Mercer & Corey, 1980), interactionists tend to use life histories, study the world through the eyes of the participant, focus on common experiences, interview individuals, and use observations as research strategies. Observations and interviews mutually interact with each other during the course of the research process.

Just observing an event or phenomenon, however, even through the eyes of a participant, is not enough. Butt and Raymond (1987) assert that there is a need to go further in understanding the relationship among events through engaging in dialogue with the teacher. This process would allow the researcher to pursue meanings, motives, beliefs, and intentions, i.e. the teachers’ thoughts and actions.

Communication and language are fundamentally important in understanding the symbolic interactionist stance. People in a given situation often develop common definitions through regular interaction and shared experiences. While some may take shared definitions to indicate truth, meaning is always subject to negotiation. Problems that arise may cause them to forge new definitions, to discard old ways, or, in short, to change. How participants develop such definitions is the subject matter for investigation (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).

Another important aspect of symbolic interaction theory is the construction of “self,” the definition people create of themselves through their interactions with others. The self is a social construction, the result of persons perceiving and defining themselves through the process of interaction. “We owe to society our very being as conscious and self-conscious entities, for that being arises from a process of symbolic interaction” (Crotty, 1998, p. 74). According to Bogdan & Biklen (1998), people attempt to see themselves as others see them by interpreting gestures and actions directed toward them and by placing themselves in the role of the other person. Putting oneself in the place of the other and seeing things from the perspective of others is a central notion of symbolic interactionism. “Only through dialogue can people become aware of the perceptions, feelings, and attitudes of others and interpret their meanings and intent” (Crotty, 1998, p.75).

Interpretation is essential. Symbolic interactionists do not attempt to resolve the discrepancies between the views of various users of a concept by establishing a standard definition. Rather, they seek to study the concept as it is understood in the context of all those who use it. “It is multiple realities rather than a single reality that concern the qualitative researcher” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 27).

Symbolic interaction is appropriate in this research since I studied the use of classroom space from the perspective of the teachers, using interviews and observations to examine their thoughts, actions, experiences, and behaviors. Through dialogue with the teachers, their words will be used to convey how things look to those inside the classroom. Meanings will be derived from oral responses of the participants during open-ended, in-depth, unstructured interviews. The content of the interviews will serve as the unit of analysis.

Definitions

Several terms are used throughout the study. In this section these terms are identified and defined for the reader.

Learning environment – an environment designed for the primary purpose of learning.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards- an organization formed in 1988 with the theory that teachers should be able to earn advanced certification in any of the subject matter areas or levels, for example, early childhood or high school mathematics, just as a medical doctor earns an initial license to practice medicine and then passes a test for board certification.

Secondary – middle and high school, grades six through twelve.

Space – the square footage within a confined classroom area.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this review is to survey the body of literature that informed the basic questions of the study. This review is divided into two sections. The first section examines literature on theoretical concepts in environmental/ecological psychology, social psychology, operant learning and perception as they relate to the classroom. The second section reviews literature on the classroom setting, including descriptions, effects, and appropriateness of the environment, and environmental competence of teachers.

Theoretical Concepts

Environmental, Ecological, and Social Psychology

In order to understand teachers’ behaviors and experiences, a researcher must look closely at the particular settings in which teachers operate. Environmental and ecological psychology provides a framework from which to examine the relationships between environment and behavior. Williams et al. (1985) stated, “Four elements functioning together-an organization, its members, its work and its physical environment- form an ecology, an ever-changing web of relationships that aims to accomplish whatever the organization exists for-to educate people, to make furniture, or to process insurance claims” (p. 5).

This “ecology” has been the focus of a relatively new branch of psychology called environmental or ecological psychology, the study of the interdependent relationships between the goal-directed actions of persons and the behavior settings in which these actions occur (Wicker, 1979). Rather than looking at human behavior in isolation, its “focus of investigation is the interrelationship between the physical environment and human behavior and experience” (Holahan, 1978, p. 9).

Psychologists Barker and Wright developed most of the terminology and methodology used in ecological psychology including several terms that are central to any discussion in this area. The first is behavior setting, which is a term preferable to “environment” or “facility” because it emphasizes the inseparability of a setting with the behaviors that occur in it. Wicker (1979) defines a behavior setting as “a bounded, self-regulated and ordered system composed of replaceable human and nonhuman components that interact in a synchronized fashion to carry out an ordered sequence of events called the setting program” (p. 12).

The second important term is synomorphy, which can roughly be defined as the fit between behaviors and objects in an environment. Coordinated behaviors and objects have synomorphic relationships with one another (Wicker, 1979). Gump (1987) describes synomorphy as it relates to the school setting:

The settings exhibit a physical aspect- site, enclosures, facilities, manipulanda- and they possess a program or action structure. In early elementary school, a standard small setting is the reading circle that has a location usually away from the center of things in the classroom. The circle’s chairs face inward around a table or small open space and form a spatial boundary for the activity. Books, charts, and other tools of the educational process are at hand. . . The physical arrangement of the reading circle and its program manifest an interlocking relationship. . . They exhibit what Barker (1968) has labeled synomorphy or “similarity of shape.” Finally, the reading circle with its beginning and ending times manifests a temporal boundary. Other settings, all of which show a physical milieu, and a program in synomorphic relationship are contained within spatial and temporal boundaries. These settings or environmental segments cluster together to create the ecological environment for a school’s staff and students. The quality of school life is heavily determined by the nature of these school settings. Description of the school environment, at the ecological level, then, comes down to the description of school settings. (p. 692)

Although architects may study a space while it is not occupied, ecological psychologists would consider it impossible to study the use of a space without seeing how people behave within it (Gayeski, 1995). Ecological psychologists believe that the behavior of people and their immediate environments are interdependent, rather than independent. They seek to understand the sequences of interactions that link the perceptions, decisions, and actions of people with non-psychological events that occur in settings (Wicker, 1979). Ecological psychologists emphasize the need to consider a holistic model of behavior-settings including the ambient environment (light, sound, temperature) and layout, as well as physical, mental, and interactional activities (Holahan, 1982).

Operant Learning and Perception

Although ecological psychology has some specific methods and theories of its own, it borrows heavily from other work done in learning, social psychology, and perception. One of the major questions these theories can help to answer is why people behave in certain ways when they are in certain environments.

One explanation for why people behave in ways congruent with their immediate environment is that they have learned to do so by trial and error. According to operant-learning theory, the events that follow a given action determine whether the action will be repeated. Learning occurs when behavior is followed by a reinforcer or a punishment (Wicker, 1979; Winter, 1996). Educational psychologists also have found that we learn by observing behavior of others. In a Montessori classroom where it’s easy to watch classmates engaged in various projects, children learn by observing their peers even before they are given a lesson (Gayeski, 1995). Using these theories, we can understand that certain things in an environment can reward or punish certain kinds of behavior.

Studies in perception are also useful in helping us to understand how people react to various environments. In his research on environment and behavior, Stokols (1976) developed a useful conceptual framework for analyzing how teachers related to educational space. He identified three modes of human interaction with the physical environment: orientation, operation, and evaluation. Orientation, an emphasis on the ways in which people orient toward the environment, is reflected in research on environmental perception, cognitive mapping, the assessment of personal dispositions toward the environment and the measurement of social climate. An emphasis on operation processes, or the ways in which people act upon and are affected by their surroundings, is reflected in research on human spatial behavior and the behavioral effects of environmental stressors such as noise and high density. Evaluation processes involve the ways in which people assess the effectiveness of their past behavior and the opportunities afforded by the environment for future goal-attainment (Stokols, 1976).

Wicker (1979) maintains that people are active in perceiving the environment. Environmental perception has several essential features, including: affective reaction (does this setting suit my needs?), orienting reaction (how do I fit in?), categories of analysis (what notions from my previous experience may be useful here?), and analysis of environmental contingencies (how is this feature of the setting related to that feature?). Over time, as the person tests out features of the setting, he or she gains a sense of order and predictability about the setting and some sense of mastery over it (Wicker, 1979).

Much research has been done on the effects of various manipulations of layout, color, lighting, and noise on individual performance and preferences. Arousal theory asserts that various situations can cause emotional excitement, pleasant or not. Noise, temperature, and color can raise one’s level of arousal. While research has found that a moderate level of arousal might adversely affect performance on a complex task, it can actually help performance on simple ones (Gayeski, 1995).

Jung postulated that fundamental psychological characteristics account for how people perceive the world and how they evaluate the information they receive. Individuals have two different preferred styles of perceiving the world: sensing (using the five senses, facts, and details) or intuition (using primarily ideas and associations from the unconscious incorporated with data from the senses). He said that people also vary in their preferred styles of making judgments: thinking (logical, impersonal) or feeling (personal and subjective values) (Gayeski, 1995).

According to Steele (1973) studies of sensory deprivation have indicated that over time a dull, monotonous environment tends to promote a person’s withdrawal into himself, a blocking of experimentation, and a sense of lack of control over his environment. Size and arrangement of space also affects behavior. The more a worker’s movements are restricted to a small area, the more his growth depends on a diversity of stimulation in his immediate surroundings.

A place promotes growth not only through the amount of stimulation, but also through the patterns of stimuli, particularly if the patterns are unexpected or novel. Unexpected arrangements help to break old habits of seeing or behaving (p. 86)

Wittich and Schuller (1973) view perception as the foundation of learning. A learner perceives through his senses – therefore, to facilitate learning, one must provide specific sensory experiences. In the classroom arise many sensory experiences that the designer of learning environments can control, and by doing so, he can improve the quantity and quality of learning. Common stimuli found in the classroom environment are energy forms: light, heat, sound, and vibration. Other environmental stimuli that exist are time of day, furniture, seating arrangements, work spaces, colors, peers, and even teachers (Rath & Ittleson, 1981).

In addition to theories about learning and perception, personality theories have also been applied to environmental design. In the 1980s, the Facility Management Institute, a group sponsored by the Herman Miller furniture company, adopted Jung’s model as modified by Briggs-Meyers to conduct research regarding optimal work settings. They maintained that a lack of fit between one’s personality style and one’s behavior-setting leads to what psychologist Leon Festinger called cognitive dissonance. The following are combinations of preferred styles for perceiving and judging along with descriptions of work settings that the researchers at the Facility Management Institute maintained were optimal for each personality type:

Thinking/intuition – “visionaries” who work best in an environment with a lot of reference material and no interruption.
Feelings/intuition – “catalysts” whose personal approach to information needs the presence of personal items such as photographs.
Thinking/sensing – “stabilizers” who need an environment geared to action and the need to display information with little personalization in a typically bureaucratic style.
Feeling/sensing – “cooperators” who work best through meeting with others; they need work spaces designed for meetings (Gayeski, 1995).

Applying these theories to the current study helps the researcher explain what relationships exist between teachers’ experiences and behaviors and their classroom’s physical environment. What are teachers’ perceptions of their classroom’s physical environment? How do teachers attempt to shape and use the environment? This study attempted to answer these questions.

Classroom Setting

Description of the Environment

Steele (1973) describes an environment as the total surrounding context for the person or subject of interest, including the physical, social and economic forces. Within that space are a number of settings, the immediate physical surroundings at a particular moment in time. Environmental research has shown that in most cases the setting acts more as a moderator – a facilitator or inhibitor – of responses which, in turn, combine in complex ways to result in different performance levels (Steele, 1973).

Thinking of instruction as an environment gives emphasis to the place or space where learning occurs. According to Wilson (1996), a learning environment, at a minimum, contains:

-the learner;

-a setting or space wherein the learner acts, using tools and devices, collecting and interpreting information, interacting perhaps with others, etc.

This metaphor holds considerable potential because instructional designers like to think that effective instruction requires a degree of student initiative and choice. An environment wherein students are given room to explore and determine goals and learning activities seems to be an attractive concept (Wilson, 1996).

Students who are given generous access to information resources- books, print and video materials, etc. – and tools- word-processing programs, e-mail, search tools, etc.- are likely to learn something if they are also given proper support and guidance. Under this conception, learning is fostered and supported, but not controlled or dictated in any strict fashion. For this reason, we tend to hear less about instructional environments and more about learning environments-instruction connoting more control and directiveness, being replaced by the more flexible idea of learning. A learning environment, then, is a place where learning is fostered and supported (Wilson, 1996).

Effects of the School or Classroom Setting

According to Veitch & Arkkelin (1995), the efficiency with which humans function is determined in large part by the limitations and proscriptions of the designed environment. Good design is that which causes minimal human discomfort and maximum human functioning. Too often, these researchers contend, designers of institutional environments merely turn out near carbon copies of what already exists, making the implicit assumption that because that’s the way it’s always been done, it must be the correct way (Veitch & Arkkelin, 1995).

The arrangement and contents of a space or a room can affect the behavior of people; it can make it easier to act in certain kinds of ways and harder to act in others. According to Kritchevsky and Prescott (1977) particular settings invite children to involve themselves in particular activities. The extent of children’s constructive participation in the activity will depend in large part on how well certain concrete, measurable aspects of the surrounding physical space meet their “hunger, attitudes and interests” (p. 5).

Space communicates with people – in a very real sense it tells us how to act and how not to act. What it tells us to do is related to what is in the space and how these things are arranged or organized. “Just as adults behave in one way at a table set for a formal dinner and in a very different way a the same table set for a poker game, children tend to behave in ways suggested by spatial contents and arrangement” (Kritchevsky & Prescott, 1977, p. 9).

The impact of physical settings on organizational life is much more complex than simply as an agent contributing to or reducing morale. Based on his observations and on Maslow’s theory of basic human needs, Steele (1973) identified six dimensions that represent the various functions of physical settings: security and shelter; social contact; symbolic identification; task instrumentality; pleasure; and growth.

For Rath and Ittleson (1981) in their research on applying human factors design to learning resource centers, the classroom is not just a shelter for teachers and learners. Rather, it should be considered as a subsystem in the process of producing effective, efficient, and predictable learning. The environment, like hardware, is inert unless designed for, and arranged in, the context of the process. The size, shape, design, furniture, floor covering, acoustics, and environmental considerations (such as temperature, humidity, and lighting) of a learning area predetermine the kinds of activities that can take place.

In a 1993 study on teachers’ perceptions of their school environments, 75 state Teachers of the Year responded to the School-Level-Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ) developed by Fisher and Fraser (1990). Findings showed that these teachers desired less work pressure, more freedom to experiment with the curriculum, and more opportunities to interact and share professional knowledge with each other. When asked about facilities and equipment, teachers responded that there were not enough resources available to effectively teach. Data analysis of the SLEQ revealed that elementary teachers rated their actual school environments slightly more positive than secondary teachers (Templeton & Jensen, 1993).

Appropriateness of the Setting

Lang (1996) states, “The physical environment should not be constructed to manipulate or influence a particular style of teaching or learning, but rather be responsive to and adaptive by individual teacher and student needs” (p. 1). Through his research on educational facilities and teaching practices he concluded that there are six qualities to be considered in creating an optimum learning environment. These components are size, shape and scale; acoustical quality and noise control; illumination and views; temperature, humidity and ventilation; communication, electrical power and technology; and material finishes, textures and color. A successful learning space, according to Lang, requires that both the educator and the designer understand the affects of each component with respect to learning as well as inter-relationship of the criteria.

According to Taylor, Aldrich, and Vlastos (1988), the passive egg-crate closed classroom format is often more like a prison than a place of discovery and creativity. After studying the effects of learning environments on the behavior and learning of children, these researchers are convinced that school environments have a largely untapped potential as active contributors to the learning process. Careful thought, time, enthusiasm, and efficiency of planning can make a school ready to create the kind of learning environment so crucial to student growth.

Every object, color, texture and spatial configuration, as well as their selection and placement, has educational significance. The designer of such spaces must, therefore, ask him or herself: “What educational implication does this or that design decision have for the occupant (learner or teacher)?” In order to do that, the designer must work closely with the educator to articulate what those goals for children are, and the educator must articulate more than square footage per child as the conceptual base for education (Taylor, Aldrich, and Vlastos, 1988, p. 31).

The built environment can become an active, three-dimensional textbook or teaching tool, rather than a passive space housing a disarray of things. Taylor, Aldrich, and Vlastos (1988) suggest that achieving well-ordered learning rests on four premises:

1. People are considered an integral part of, not apart from, the environment.

2. The architectural environment, as a work of art in and of itself, can affect behavior.

3. The environment can be designed, engineered, and provisioned to serve as an additional learning tool.

4. The learning environment can be evaluated as a learning tool. (p. 32).

Our view of learning space should reflect a realization that the space is one of dynamic complexity. According to Michael Fullan (in Hunkins, 1994), such complexity is the real territory of change. “We need spaces that will facilitate the creation of meaning, places where knowledge can be constructed, experiments conducted, investigation carried out, and results of inquiry shared and shaped. We need spaces where the curriculum can serve as the raw material for the knowledge-work process” (Hunkins, 1994).

Effects of Building Condition

Good facilities are an important precondition for student learning, provided that other conditions are present to support a strong academic program. A growing body of research has linked student achievement and behavior to the conditions of the physical building. In the District of Columbia, students’ standardized test scores were lower in schools with poor building conditions, after controlling for socioeconomic status. Students in facilities in poor condition had achievement that was 6% below schools in fair condition and 11% below schools in excellent condition (Edwards, 1991).

In a study of small, rural Virginia high schools, Cash (1993) found a relationship between building condition and student achievement. Student scores, adjusted for socioeconomic status, were up to 5 percentile points lower in buildings with lower quality ratings. Poorer achievement was associated with specific building condition factors such as substandard science facilities, air conditioning, locker conditions, classroom furniture, more graffiti, and noisy external environments. Similarly, Hines (1996) found that student achievement in large, urban, Virginia high schools was as much as 11 percentile points lower in substandard buildings as compared to above-standard buildings.

A before-and-after case study was conducted on the effects of school renovation on Syracuse City School students. Student scores were analyzed in reading and math for an 11-12 year period surrounding several elementary school renovation projects. Findings revealed a correlation between newer facilities and student performance levels. A statistically significant relationship was found between upgraded facility conditions and higher math scores, particularly in the sixth grade. Results also indicate decreased student performance during the renovation project (Moore & Warner, 1998).

The General Accounting Office (GAO, 1996) examined the extent to which America’s schools have the physical capacity to support learning into the 21st century. In a survey of approximately 10,000 schools, the GAO found that 40 percent of the schools reported that their facilities could not meet the functional requirements of laboratory science or large-group instruction. Over half reported unsatisfactory flexibility of instructional space necessary to implement effective teaching strategies.

The Institute for Educational Leadership (Corcoran, et al., 1988) conducted a study of conditions in five urban school districts. The purpose was two-fold: to provide a rich description of conditions facing urban teachers and to gain insight into how variations in conditions affect teachers. The project collected descriptive data on 31 elementary, middle, and secondary schools. More than 400 interviews from teachers, administrators, central office personnel, board members and union officials, were analyzed. Observations, interviews and analyses confirm that in most of these 31 schools “Teachers appeared to accept as normal, and therefore adequate, conditions that were at best bleak and dreary and would not be tolerated in other professions” (p. 12). Physical conditions were sub-standard due to lack of repairs and preventive maintenance, with only 3 of the 31 schools considered by teachers to be in “good” condition. In 16 of 31 schools, space was reported to be a problem. Common space problems described were the number of students compared to the size of the room, the lack or quality of office space or teacher lounges, meeting space and common areas, and the lack of storage space. Teachers report that the teacher-student ratio is judged by the district-wide average, not by the size of the room. In other words, space is not matched to needs (Corcoran, et al., 1988).

Using criteria developed by a national task force of facility planners, architects, and school administrators, observations were conducted in three American and three Japanese schools. A profile of a school having characteristics conducive to student learning was created. The Interface Profile presents six major areas of interface between facility and learning. According to the study, student learning is enhanced when the facility: is an integral part of the community; is adaptable to the users’ needs; permits teachers to function as professionals; fosters communication; creates an appropriate behavioral setting and; accommodates a variety of learning styles. (Hawkins & Overbaugh 1988).

The quality of the physical environment affects the performance of teachers as well as students. A study of working conditions in 31 urban schools concluded “physical conditions have direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom, and on the general learning environment.” In dilapidated buildings teachers felt despair and frustration while teachers in renovated buildings voiced “a renewed sense of hope, of commitment, a belief that the district cared about what went on in that building,” (Corcoran et al., 1988).

In an analysis of teachers’ perceptions of their school environment, Gehrke et al. (1982) found that middle school teachers used the environment to control student behavior but not as a curriculum variable. Although some teachers were alert to colors, lighting, space, crowding, or furnishings, few used their walls to teach or reinforce learning. None saw that the school could look far more like a home or office building than it did and still function well. Classroom location had some impact on teachers’ social activities and friendship patterns. Gehrke concluded that teachers need guidance in the effects and uses of school space.

Lowe (1990) determined which aspects of the physical environment affected teachers the most. In interviews with State Teachers of the Year, factors such as quality equipment and furnishings, climate control, and acoustics were identified as the most important environmental features. Teachers emphasized that the ability to control classroom temperature is critical to student and teacher performance.

Effects of School Size and Capacity

In addition to concerns over physical aspects of the learning environment, school size and capacity are issues that are receiving increased attention. In New York City, a study of overcrowded schools found that students scored significantly lower on both math and reading exams than did similar students in underutilized buildings. Teachers and students in the overcrowded schools agreed that overcrowded conditions had a negative effect on classroom activities and instruction. (Rivera-Batiz and Marti, 1995).

In a study of urban schools, Corcoran et al. (1988) found that overcrowding and heavy workloads created stressful working conditions that led to higher teacher absenteeism. Overcrowding makes it difficult for students to concentrate on lessons and receive personal attention. For teachers, an overcrowded classroom means an increase in the workload and a decrease in time to implement innovative teaching methods.

Schools are also addressing the multiple concerns of school size, population density, and physical scale of school buildings. A recent investigation of school size and student achievement in high schools found a curvilinear relationship between the two (Lee and Smith, 1997). Student achievement in reading and math was related to school size, with the ideal high school ranging from 600 to 900 students. Students learned less in smaller schools and considerably less in larger schools. Poor and minority students were particularly affected. The greatest negative effects of size were experienced in high schools with enrollments more than 2,100 students. This is particularly disturbing for Georgia, where schools are larger than in many states. Only about 17 percent of secondary students in Georgia attend schools with enrollments less than 900 (NCEF, 2000).

The classic study Big School, Small School (Barker and Gump, 1964) found that small schools (100-150) offer greater extracurricular opportunities than large schools (over 2,000). Factors such as student satisfaction, participation in school activities and organizations, and number of classes taken were all found to be superior in small schools as compared to large schools. Large high schools may also foster feelings of anonymity among students. Close relationships with teachers were found to be the strongest school-based correlate of healthy adolescent behavior (Resnick et al., 1997).

New research sponsored by the Rural School and Community Trust shows that Georgia’s smaller schools reduce the damaging effects of poverty on student achievement and help reduce the achievement gap between students from poorer communities and those from wealthier communities. Researchers analyzed 1,626 schools in Georgia using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills for grades 3, 5, and 8, the Georgia High School Graduation Test in grade 11, and the percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunch. In Georgia, as school size increases, the achievement scores in schools serving children from poorer communities fall on 27 of 29 test scores (NCEF, 2000).

In addition to the research on school size, studies have shown that class size is related to student achievement (Achilles, Finn, & Bain, 1997-98). In grades K through 3, class sizes of about 15 students appear to benefit all students, particularly those who need extra help. Small classes can be provided in the confines of a large school, using the school-within-a-school model. The perception of a small class can also be accomp

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS