The Built Environment s Effect on Learning

7/27/2019 The Built Environment s Effect on Learning

1/5

SPOTLIGHT: UPDATING OUR,AGENDAS

The Built Environment's Effect onLearning: Applying Current ResearchBy James A. Dyck I

he importance of the learning envi-ronment in the Montessori approach_T..whas been and will continue to bethoroughly defined and expressed in termsof the "prepared environment." Accordingto Dr. Kevin Rathunde:The teacher must pay more attention to thelearning environment than in traditionalapproaches, and the enviromment is tai-lored to the child (e.g. the entire physicalenvironment is "child-sized"). The envi-

ronmzent is perceived as the mediumthroughwhich the teacherhelps the childto engageattentionand concentrate. Justas apositive biological niche contains thenecessary elements that seize upon anorganism's true nature and innate capaci-ties. aprepared school environment mustseize upon the essence of the child-theintrinsic motivation for spontaneous ac-tivity (Rathunde, 2001, pp. 29-30)Rathunde (p.28) poses the question, "howcan adults prepare an environment for chil-dren that facilitates deep concentration andflow, and is thereby consistent with ournormal, inborn capacities?" He definesflowas a natural period of deep concentrationwhere the subject appears to be unaware ofthe surroundings or the passage of time.Rathunde continues: "Montessori's answerto the above question is clear-the contextof optimal experience is the prepared envi-ronment" (p.28).As Montessori teachers, we understand thatthepreparedenvironmentplays akeyroleintheteaching and learning experience and continu-ally pursue additional guidance with respect todeveloping it. We prepare the built environ-ment through involvement with Montessorimaterials and related activities to facilitate op-timal learning experiences. This article focuseson six physical attributes of the prepared envi-ronment that I believe should be addressed inenvironmental design: aesthetics, spatial fac-tors, light, noise, color, and temperature (ther-

mal factors). In this article I review and applycurrent literature and my own observations tounderstandbetterhowthesesix attributes affectlearning from the context of the Montessoriprepared environment.Environment

The word environmentcarries many differ-ent meanings. It has usually been associatedwith the "natural" environment and environ-mental preservation and restoration. Webstergives us this definition: "the aggregate ofsurrounding things, conditions orinfluences."

Environment o eachmustbe everythingthatisnot me, saidAFuller.Buckrninster Fuller, architect, inventor,and philosopher, put it simply: environmentto each must be everything that is not me.Daniel Duke (1998, p. 6), director of theThomas Jefferson Center for EducationalDesign, suggests: "A learning environmentrepresents the physical, social and culturalcontext in which learning occurs." While itis important to acknowledge the role of thesocial and cultural context in a learningsetting, the significance of the physical con-text has captured the attention of research-ers, educators, and others in recent decades.Following World War II, when WinstonChurchill argued for the restoration of thebomb-damaged House of Commons to itsoriginal historical design, he said, "We shapeour buildings and thereafter our buildingsshape us" (Dudley, 1994, p. 8). This state-

ment is very popular among supporters ofenvironmental psychology. Fuller tells us tostop trying to reform people: reform theenvironment and people will reform them-selves. Although many might argue that thisproclamation is somewhat overstated, it sup-ports Churchill's supposition.Educator Dr. Anne Taylor, a strong sup-porter of the importance of the built envi-ronment and ofMontessori education, sug-gests the following:Human infants and children leam morerapidly in stimulating and varied physicalenvironments which meet basic humanneeds .... The architectural settings canfacilitate the transmission of cultural val-ues, stimulate or subdue, aid creativity orslow mental perception, and cause fear orjoy....There cannot be separation betweenthe learning process and the physical envi-ronment-they are integral parts of eachother. (Taylor &Gousie 1988, p. 23)Edward T. Hall (1966) proposes: "Man'ssense of space is closely related to his sense

of self which is in an intimate transactionwith his environment" (p. 60). Environmentis perceived by sensory receptors. Distancereceptors are those that are utilized when

examining distant objects and include theeyes, ears, and nose. Immediate receptors areused to examine the world up close andinclude the skin, membranes, and muscles.The first sense developed in a newborn is thatof the tactile system. Sight, the most special-ized sense to be developed by humans, is thelast sense developed. Hall suggests that thevisual and tactile spatial experiences are "sointerwoven that the two cannot be separated"(p. 57). Similarly, visual and kinesthetic spa-tial experiences are often inseparable.Montessori teachers know how importantmovement and multisensory reinforcementsare to a learning experience. Hall's notion ofspatial experience seems to support our no-tion of a prepared environment.

Research Issues and LimitationsThe main limitation with environmentalresearch is in the very nature of academicdisciplines. Academic research tends to askacademic questions specific to a particulardiscipline and often is not directly applicableto design issues. For example, geographerstend to focus on cognitivemapping and under-

standing of space, anthropologists on personalspace and cultural influences, sociologists onsocial dimensions of context, psychologistson the perception of the environment, and soon, while neglecting the other points of view.The opposite extreme, however, is that stud-ies can be too vague,not showing any isolationof environmental variables. For example, stud-ies of old versus new buildings do not attemptto define and control for specific environmen-tal aspects. Quantitative studies also can bedifficult, in that they can show correlations butnot necessarily prove causal relationships.Another critical limitation is found in thedefinitions of desirable learning outcomesand their measurement. In recent years, edu-cators have begun to question the value ofstandardized test scores and redefine educa-tional outcomes. They also are strugglingwith measurement of more holistic and ab-stract outcomes. For example, it is consid-ered unrealistic to attempt to measure andquantify skills relating to abstract thinking,human interaction, or creativity. Unfortu-nately, environmental research still reliesheavily on comparative standardized testscores even though they might measure avery narrow scope of learning or intelli-gence. We are left to decide to what extenttest scores measure the effectiveness of theprepared environment in terms of facilitat-ing concentration and flow.

Research Suggests GuidelinesTaylor and Gousie (1988) examined sev-eral environmental factors in a learning set-ting: long-term noise, full-spectrum light,and color's effect on blood pressure andbehavior, discovering that all affect learn-ing performance.GlenEarthman andLindaLemaster(1996)found that school building age, thermal fac-

Montessori LIFE *Winter 2002 53


2/5

tors, visual factors (lighting), color and inte-rior painting, hearing factors, building main-tenance, availability of special instructionalfacilities (science), and size of school allaffect learning performance. The followingsurvey of research literature addresses theeffects of environmental attributes.

The AestheticAttributeAfter examining the effects of a "rich" envi-ronment versus a "poor" one, Jasnoski (1992)

states, "a diversity of locales and features havedemonstrated an impact upon mood, cognitiveperformance, and health for different popula-tions" (p. 139). Sh e outlines a "Mood Scale"thatincludestension, depression,hostility, vigor,fatigue, confusion, relaxation, anger, resource-fulness, friendliness, negative mood, and posi-tive mood. Cognitive performance wa s alsoassessed. According to Jasnoski,A poor environment decreased vigor as wellas increased fatigue relative to the richenvironment... .In apoorenvironment, al'ofthose with SADS [seasonal affective disor-der], irrespective of absorption level, de-

creasedinresourcefulness.ThosewithSADSappearedtoplum-netinresourcefulnesswhenin a stimulus-poor milieu for just half anhour.....In a rich environment. absorptionmediated tension....In sum, physical envi-romment by itself affects mood variablesrelated to activity level. (pp. 139 - 140)When Boyers and Burkett (1989) com-

pared tw o high schools in Eastern Tennes-see, on e old and one new, they found thatthe students in the modern building stillscored significantly higher in all threeareas [listening, language, and mathemat-ics] than did students who were at similarsocioeconomic levels in the olderfacility....Incidents of disciplinary action and ab-sences were noticeably less than in theolderfacility.... Self-concepts of studentsin the modern building were significantlyhigher than in the older facility. (p. 29)In a study of the Washington, DC, public

school system, researchers found a 10.9%average difference in achievement test scoresbetween an "excellent" and a "poor" facility(Berner, 1993).Carol Cash (1993) reports similarfindingsfrom astudy of ruralhigh schools inVirginia:student achievement scores were as much as5 percentile points higher in buildirigs that.receivedhigher quality ratings.In a 1992 interview, Jonathan Kozol wasasked,> "What do'you consider the noireserious problems [in American schools]?"Kozol replied,the aesthetic consequences of disrepair.The ugliness of a building in disrepairconveys a very clear message to a childthat we don't value that child very highly....It's virtually impossible to raise theirself-esteem ifwe place them in a buildingthat tells them that we hold them in verylow self-esteem. (Kozol, 1992, p.39)

In addition, Hansen (1993) calls attentiontothe "Schoolhouse in the Red" research that

found 12% of ournation'spublic schools tobe"inadequate," with most of the buildings un -healthy, unsafe, and even structurally unsound.Th e most telling piece of information thatthe "Schoolhouse in the Red" researchrevealed was the work done in 1992 byMaureen Edwards at Georgetown Univer-sity. Working with architects and engi-neers who evaluated the condition of someWashington, DC , schools, Edwards foundthat the condition of the building made apredictable difference in student achieve-ment. Using standardized achievementscores and statistically removing othervariables known to affect the scores, suchas the student's socioeconomic status,Edwards found the following:* Students assigned to schools in poorcondition can be expected to fall 5.5

percentage points below those inschools in fair condition.* Students assigned to schools in poorcondition can be expected to fall 10.9percentage points below those inbuildings in excellent condition.Morethanoneattomey,havingread"Schqol-

house in the Red," has called me and inessence asked "Since the courts have estab-lished education as a privilege, do thesefindings mean that school administrators aredenying students in 'poor' or even 'fair'buildings their educational rights under thelaw?" And, "Morethanone studenthasbeenkept out of college by 11 percentage pointson their standardized test, does thismean thecondition of school facilities is preventingsome students from attending a university?What is the impact on the quality of theirlives, theirlife's work,theireamingpower?"Tough questions we are apt to hear in courtif we don't take a look at what we are doingto our school buildings-and our students.(Hansen, 1993, pp.31-32)InMontessori classrooms aesthetics ispar-ticularly valued in the visual appeal of thelearning materials. Cleanliness and order areseen as important aesthetic attributes for learn-ing. Montessorians understand that the envi-ronment must be worthy of respect if weexpect the children to respect it. This respect,whichbegins with interpersonal relationships,

should naturally apply to life in general andthe classroom environment specifically.

The Spatial AttributeIt may be suggested that children's interests

exist for the purpose ofmeeting specific devel-opmentalneeds. As ateacherofyoungchildren,I have observed children's special interests inlanguage, sensory experimentation, creativeplay, and motor activities. There are numeroustheories of child development which attempt toexplain relationships between these activitiesand children's developmental needs. Dr. Mon-tessori recognized children's sensitive periodsfor order, language development. etc. How-ever, there has been very little written to dateregarding the sensitivity of children to spaceand the role of spatial experience in meetingdevelopmental needs (Dick [Dyck], 1977).

\ ~ Children- +_t - -xhibit aninterest n- - . t ^- i or specialsensitivity

-r f >~topatialqualitiesand takedelight inspatialexperiences.

In the spring of 1973, during my Montessoritraining at MECA-Seton, ou r class was askedby a teacher trainer to relate some early child-hood memories. The purpose was to find outwhat activities orpersonshadbeenimportanttous as children. As these memories were beingrelated, it occurred to me that in nearly everyinstance, a spatial context prevailed. I recalledmy ow n early memories: a dirt place at the endoftheporchcompletelycoveredoverbybushes,anigloothatwasbuiltannuallyonanarrowstripbetween the sidewalk and the driveway, and asmall climbing tree with a canopy of heavyfoliage in an empty lot next door.

Kohl (1969) relates a similar incident,which occurred during a teachers' seminarhe was conducting:During one session we all tried to thinkback to our own earliest experiences inschool and to recreate them in writing orthrough drawing. Most of our memorieswent backto kindergarten orthe first grade,and an unusual number of them werespatial. I remember my first-grade class-room and ho w confined and box-like itfelt. Th e tables were placed in rows andtheir tops were hard and rectangular. I wasafraid that I would move things from theirproperplace and walked cautiously when-ever I left my seat. Fo r the most part I triedto disappear into my chair, hide from theteacher, and let my imagination invest theroom with wild and secret places. Thedrawings [of the teachers attending theseminar] were full of boxes representingour rooms, papers, books, tables, build-ings-our memories of school were pre-dominately closed and rectangular. (p.34)

John Holt (1974) also tells of an interestingexperience when hewa s a classroomteacher.I once taught at a small elementary schoolwhere each year we would have an all-dayschool outing and picnic. On one suchouting we drove up to a new place that noneof us had seen before. There was a flat,grassy field, the usual picnic tables andfireplaces, and beyond, abroad, gentle hill-side, covered in knee-high grass. Th e chil-dren, as if pulled by magnets went to and upthat hill, each one making his own path,running this way and that-drunk on space.Thatspacebeckoned, demanded to be used,explored, filled up and occupied. This hill-side was just the right size-big enough tobe inviting and exciting, not so big as to be54 Montessorti LIFE *Winter 2002


3/5

overwhelming. The children responded.We all respond to space, but most adults soseldom see aspace that they want toand canrespond to that we lose much of this sense.Our surroundings are often so ugly that toprotect ourselves we shut them out. Chil-dren on the whole, have not learned how todo this. Children respond to many otherkinds of space, not only big space, openspace, but small spaces, cozy spaces, espe-cially hidden private places. (p.667)He suggests that "wasted" and "unus-able" spaces, such as stairs, stair landings,little corridors, closets, bathrooms, and tinyrooms too small to use for any recognizableschool purpose can have educational value.Anyone who has observed achild runningjubilantly along the expanse of a long beachor has seen some children huddled in thehollow of a large bush would probably agreethat children exhibit an interest in or specialsensitivity to spatial qualities and take delightin spatial experiences. As an architect, I thinkthat spatial qualities are significant environ-mental factors and that the "enhancement" ofspatial experience is a vital design criterion.A second experience during myMontessoritraining initiated my interest in the importanceof shape or spatial qualities. My instructor forenvironmental design. Lillian Kroenke, hadrecently completed a new school buildingproject. BecauseI'm an architect, she thoughtI might be interestedin an observation she hadabouthernewclassroom. Theroom was squarewith a sunken square in the center. Sheobserved that no matter where two childrenwereintheclassroom, theyperceivedthattheywere close enough to have a conversation. Theresult of this was that the noise level washigher than she wanted. The busy hum be-came a loud roar. She believed that an elon-gated shape would have been better.During the next few years I was able towork with Montessori schools on severalsmall projects. In consideration ofKroenke'sobservation, I developed the "L" shapedclassroom (Dyck, 1994). This shape com-bines several desirable qualities:* it has the longest actual diagonal distance,* it has the most pronounced inside cor-ners, and* it is asymmetrical.The diagonal distance provides the greatestactual separation within a given room size,while the interior corner creates a sense of

discovery where every part of the room isnot necessarily visible. I intuitively believedthat asymmetry created amorenatural "won-dering" environment and that the non-linearity would discourage running.Symmetrical spaces tend to be center fo-cused, while asymmetrical spaces create moreinterest in the perimeter. Hall (1992) creditsHumphrey Osmond, a physician, with theterms sociopetalan d sociofitgal.Sociopetalrefers to spaces that encourage social interac-tion, while socioffigal refers to spaces thatdiscourage social interaction. It follows that

asymmetrical spaces are more sociofugaland that sociofugal spaces are better suitedfor learning settings where multiple and di-verse activities are occurring (e.g., a Montes-sori classroom). TheL-shaped classroomhasbeen incorporated in Montessori schools andpublic schools (elementary and secondary).One school has won a national design awardfor "Impact on Leaming" from SchoolPlan-ning and ManagementMagazine.

e I-myCross L Rectangle Square TAlthough spatial attributes have not beenthe focus of extensive empirical research, theliterature on crowding appears to offer relatedinsights. Crowvdingis defmedas apsychologi-cal condition that is measured in terms ofstresswhich results from one's awareness of othersin a space. The level of his stress is dependentnot only on the density of people within aspace, but on many other factors, as well.Research has shown that temperature, noiselevel, lighting, room shape, partitions, aes-thetics, richness ofresources, andthe numberof doors affect crowding. All of these aresignificant because of their effect on one'stolerance for the presence of other people.Researchers suggest that quiet areas for soli-tary activities are important to learners be-cause they provide the opportunity to reducesocial stimulation. It is interesting to note thatin reference to shape, the worst shape was thesquare. Many desirable environmental fac-tors appear to lower the stress of crowding.

The Lighting AttributeLighting in a classroom is extremely im-

portant. According to the AIA Center forBuilding Performance, quality lighting im-proves students' feelings, behavior, concen-tration, and therefore, their learning. Achiev-ing lighting quality means supporting com-fort, good color, uniformity and balance,brightness, andrelationships (HaydenMcKayLighting Design &Lindsley Consultants Inc.).Effects relevant to light have been re-ported by Hathaway (1994).* Full spectrum fluorescent lamps with ul-traviolet enhancement (T8 bulbs in para-bolic fixtures) correlated with fewerden-tal cavities, better attendance, achieve-ment, and growth and development.* Light has therapeutic effects, includingVitamin D synthesis, control of infan-tilejaundice, control of Rickets and con-trol of psoriasis and leukemia throughlight-drug interactions.* Uniformly lit spaces, including lightedwalls and ceilings, result in greater eyecomfort and less eyestrain.* Light-colored walls and ceilings reflectlight and increase efficiency.It is also important to avoid glare. Glareoccurs when bright light sources interferewith the viewing of objects that are less

bright. Increasing the brightness of the sur-roundings, decreasing the brightness of thelight sources, orboth, can control most glare.Reflective glare occurs when direct lightsources are above 45 degrees from the hori-zontal. Therefore, teachers should avoid plac-ing activities under or near light fixtures./~1

Day lighting also affects student perfor-mance. TheHeschongMahone Group (1999)conducted a study that examined studentperformance data from three elementaryschool districts and looked for a correlationto the amount of daylight provided by eachstudent's classroom environment. They ana-lyzed score results from 21,000 secondthrough fifth-grade students in three states.Each classroom was assigned a series ofcodes on a 0-to-5 scale, indicating the sizeand tint of its windows, the presence and typeof any sky lighting, and the overall amount ofdaylight expected. Their results follow.* Capistano School District, OrangeCounty, CA: In a 1-year study, studentswith the most daylight progressed 20%faster on math tests and 26% faster onreading tests. Students in classroomswith large windows progressed 15%and 23% faster, respectively.* Seattle, WA, and Fort Collins, CO:Only final test scores were available.Students in classrooms with the mostday lighting were found to have 7 to18% higher scores than those in class-rooms with the least.A Swedish study of 90 elementary schoolstracked student behavior, health, and cortisol(stress hormone) levels over the course of ayear in four classrooms with varying daylighting levels. The results indicate that "workin classrooms without daylight may upset thebasic hormone pattern and this in turn mayinfluence children's ability to concentrate orcooperate, and also eventually have an im-pact on annual body growth and absentee-ism" (Plympton, Conway, & Epstein, 2000,p. 3). Another study in Alberta, Canada,reported by the same authors, compared chil-

dren attending elementary schools with full-spectrum lighting with children in schoolswith conventional lighting over a 2-year pe-riod. The results showed that students in full-spectrum lighted classrooms had'3.2 daysfewerabsencesperyearand9times less toothdecay; they grew 3/4 inch more than studentsin classrooms with conventional lighting.The effect of full-spectrum artificial lightingmight be less significant in a Montessori class-room, where children move around inside andoutside more freely and more often. However,if a primary goal is to eliminate all possibleMontessori LIFE *Winter 2002 55


4/5

Researchi resuilts ndicate hatchzildren in class-rooms wvith the most daylight fare better inbothi healthi and performiance.distracttons from concentration, then consider-ation of lighting quality mright be relevant.

ColorColor has an influence on blood pressureandbehavior: warm colors increasethebloodpressure and muscular activity, while cool

colors lower both (Taylor &Gousie, 1988).Studies also have shown that use of nature'scolors, such as blues, greens, and browns,creates a comfortable relaxed environment(Hathaway, 1987).Color schemes in classrooms should be

light and natural. Bright reds, yellows, andoranges should be limited, though they canbe used effectively in learning materials toprovidemore interest. Generally, bright col-ors are best used with learning materials andart. White walls allow all colors to be seenwithout the bias of a colored background.Large areas of warm colors such as red,yellow, or orange should be avoided.

The Thermal AttributeHarer (1h974) has explored relationshipsbetween air temperature and student perfor-

mance in reading and mathematics.Reading speed and reading comprehensionappear to be the most affected by increasedtemperature. The research shows that a sig-nificant reduction in reading speed andread-ing comprehension occurs between the tem-peratures ofo73.4 and80.6 Fahrenheit... Th eideal air temperature range for reading ap-pears to be 68 to 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit. ...Mathematicaloperationssuchasmultiplica-ion,addition,aandfactoringhavebeenshowntobesignificantlyreducedayan airtempera-proeofr77 degrees Fahrenheit. The reductionin performance began above 74 degreesFahrenheit....rnathematical operations areperfosred best in a temperature range of 68to 74 degrees Fahrenheit. (p. 4)

Harer also concluded that "under ideal ther-mal conditions, students worked faster andproduced a figher percentage of correct an-swersin the moring" (p.5). An airtemperatureof 68 to 74 degrees Fahrenheit was found to beideal for most leaning situations. The thermalenvironent also affectedtheretentionnoflear-ing: not only do students lean more, bu t alsothey retain the knowledge longer when it islearmed in an ideal thermal enviroFnent.

The Acoustical AttributeTaylor and Gousie (1988) found that re-search on the effects ofnoise has not demon-

strated clear negative effects on learningover short periods of time. However, thelong-term effects demonstrate the need formore careful attention to noise levels.Noisyenvironments tend to result in "poorer audi-tory discrimination and less tolerance forfrustration by children" (p. 24). Also, highnoise levels adversely affect teaching time.InMontessori classrooms we arevery awareof the noise level and its effect on learning.Sound-absorbing materials can enhance thequality of the learning experience.

ConclusionIn Montessori learning environments andsome other settings where active learning ispracticed, the learner-environment relation-ship is dynamic. In this type of setting, chil-dren interact with each other and thephysicalenvironment. Although environmental influ-ences on learning behavior are now widely

seen to be significant, it is easy to concludethat these factors are even more influential ina dynamic interactive learning setting.The interactive effects ofphysical attributescan significantly enhance or impede learning.For example, colors that increase blood pres-sure can affectthenoiselevel in the classroom.The literature on crowding suggests that theresultant higher stress levels can b,e mitigatedby multiple environmental attributes. Th e shapeof a classroom can lower one's awareness ofothers in that space, which could lower noiselevels that result from social interaction. Athermally uncomfortable environment canlower thresholds for frustration that can ad-versely affect the acoustical environment. Gooddesign that considers all six of the physicalenvironmental attributes will result in a learn-ing setting that is more likely to support flowand concentration.Although research and resulting literaturecontinue to evolve, there is a need for morerigorous research that isolates and documentscondition and effect. W e do notbegin to have allofthe answers. W e have noteven formulated allof the questions. However, it is becoming in-creasingly clear that the built environmpnt in-fluences learning behavior and, in a broadercontext, it significantly affects our quality oflife. Environment is an inclusive term; under-standing its impact on our lives is important.JAMESA. DYCK ispresidentof The Archi-tectz ralPartnership, incoln,NE,andafound-ing boardmember of PrairieHill LearningCenter,Roca, wvhere his wife, Lyn, isdirector.

ReferencesBerner, M. M. (1993, April). Building conditions,parental involvement, and student achievementin the District of Columbia public school system.UrbanEducation, 28(1). pp . 6-29.Bowers, J. H., & Burkett, C. W. (1989, January/February). Effects of physical and school envi-

ronment on students and faculty. The Educa-tional FacilityPlanner,26 (1), pp. 28-29.Cash, C. (1992).A studyof the relationshipbenveenschool buildinzg condition and student achieve-menit and behavior.Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg.Dick (Dyck), J. A. (1977).A studyofspatialexperi-encewith preschoolagedchildren n a designedenvironment. Unpublished master'sproject, Uni-versity of Illionois, Chicago.Dudley, G. A. (1994). A workshop for peace: De-signing UnitedNationsheadquarters.Cambridge,MA : MIT Press.Duke, D. L. (1998). Does it matterwhereour clil-dren learn? A policy perspectivespaper. Rich-mond, VA: Th e Thomas Jefferson Center forEducational Design, University ofVirginia.Dyck, J. A. (1994, November). The case for the L-shaped classroom: Does the shape of a classroomaffect the quality of the learning that goes oninside it? Principal, pp. 41-45.Dyck, J. A. (1997). Th e learner-centered environ-ment: Using the "Fat L" shaped classroom. Lin-coln, NE: Th e Architectural Partnership.Earthman, G. I., &Lemasters. L. (1996, October 8).Review of researchon the relationshipbetiveenschoolbuildings, studentachievement, and stu-dent behavior. Tarpon Springs, FL: Council ofEducational Facility Planners International.Hall, E. T. (1992). The hidden dimension. NewYork: Peter Smith.Hansen, S. J. (1993, October). Th e schools childrenare forced to attend. The Journalof SchoolBusi-ness Management,5(4), pp . 30-36.Harner, D. P. (1974). Effects of thermal environ-ment on learning skills. Educational FacilitPlanner,12(2), pp . 4 -6 .Hathaway, W. E. (1994).Non-visual effects ofclass-room lighting on children. Education Canada33(4), pp . 34-40.Hathaway, W. E. (1987, March/April). Effects oflight and color on pupil achievement, behavior andphysiology, EducationalFacilityPlanner,25(2)Hayden McKay Lighting Design &Lindsley Consultants, Inc. (2001, January). Classroom lightingknowhow, In Lighting Design, IESNA LightingHandbook (9 h ed.). New York: Illuminating En-gineering Society ofNorth America.Heschong Mahone Group. (1999, August 20)Daylighting in schools: An investigation into therelationslhipbetiveendaylightingandhumanperformance. Fair Oaks, CA: Pacific Gas &Electric Co.Holt, J. (1974, August). Children are sensitive tospace. School Review, 83(4), p. 667.Jasnoski, M. B. (1992). Th e physical environmenaffects quality of life based upon environmentalsensitivity. Joumral of Applied DevelopmentaPsychology, 13 , pp. 139-142.Kohl, H. R. (1969). The open classroom.New York:Random House.

Kozol, J. (1992, February). Facilities impact onlearning. AmericanSchooland UniversityMagazine, pp. 39-43.Moore, D. P. (1999, January), Where children learnSchool PlarningandManagement,38(1), p.6 2Plympton, P., Conway, S., &Epstein, K. (2000, Jun16). Daylightintg in schools: Improving studenperformance and health at a price schools caafford. Paper presented at the American SolaEnergy Society Conference, Madison, WI.Rathunde, K. (2001, Winter). Montessori educational optimal experience: A framework for newresearch. NAMTA Journal,26(1), pp. 10-43.Taylor, A., &Gousie, G. (1988). Th e ecology olearning environments for children. EducationFacilityPlanner,26(4), pp . 2 3 -28 .

56 Montessori LIFE *Winter 2002


5/5

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: The built environments effect on learning: applying

current research

SOURCE: Montessori Life 14 no1 Wint 2002

WN: 0234905892017

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://www.amshq.org/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Documents

The Built Environment s Effect on Learning