This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
The Ohio State University
Introduction
It is widely accepted by person-environmental theorists that once the most
basic of Maslow's hierarchical needs have been met the human aspects of the
environment play a more significant role in the elicitation of behavior than the
physical ones (Moos 1987) . Perhaps it is as a result of this orientation that
research on purely physical environmental factors is somewhat lacking. This is
unfortunate since the physical environment does play a role in the design of
human bchavior. Indeed it is these factors that provide the moment-tomoment
inputs to people" whether other environmental stimuli are present or not (Wicker
1979).
Rapoport (1982) points out an obvious fact that many theorists fail to
overtly recognize i.e. the enculturation process produces learned behavioral
responses to certain types of environments. Places like churches, playgrounds,
gymnasiums and ' aesthetic" environments ensure that people raised in our
western culture will tend to exhibit predictable behavioral patterns when situated
within them. The option therefore of designing or altering a physical space to
intentionally generate culturally-learned perceptions and subsequent behavior
should always be kept in mind as a potential useful tool.
This article investigates the impact of a variety of physical attributes on
student behavior in the college classroom. Skinner's commonly accepted
assumption among person-environment interaction theorists that "a person does
not (primarily) act upon the world, the world acts upon him (or her) (Conyne,
1975) is taken as a given for the purposes of this discussions as is Moos' s (1987)
position that there are a certain amount of similarities between residential and
classroom settings.
Background
Person-environment interaction theory is a relatively new perspective on
human behavior and development published widely only within the last couple of
decades. As a result, research in this area is current but often lacking in
replication and sheer quantity.
Rapoport (1982) defines only two main categories of consideration within
environmental settings: physical and social, with a social emphasis being
apparent in all research. Moos (1987) considers also organizational and "human
aggregate" factors but again considers the society climate as the key overarching
variable. Neither discusses the importance of physical attributes to any
significant degree.
Researchers. who have given at least secondary consideration to the
physical environment however have published some rather significant findings in
this area. Although many of these studies are directly applicable only to
elementary classroom (or other) settings their conclusions have been reviewed in
this article for potential application to the collegiate instructional environment.
Significant Physical Environmental Factors
The available research seems to lend itself to classification by spatial
arrangement and design visual factors, aural factors, touch and other physical
stimulation taste, and smell .
Spatial Arrangement/Physical Design - In general, less crowded spaces that offer each person more room have been found to produce less stress (Ahrentzen et al 1982); and in residence halls reported overall satisfaction is greater (Holahan & Wilcox, 1978) and friendship formation is enhanced (Holahan & Wilcox, 1977)
in an inverse proportional relationship to the height of the setting above ground
level.
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) found that in any environment, the more
organized and neat the appearance the less physiological and psychological
stimulation was produced. Any building design can facilitate or discourage the
formation of interpersonal relationships by the manner in which it requires people
to come into contact with each other (Myrick & Marx 1968). Myrick & Marx also
suggest that positive learning and development is enhanced by relationship
development and therefore that buildings should be designed with large, open
gathering places where people are forced to go in their performance of their
required tasks.
Rappoport (1982) suggests the consideration of the following factors
when designing any space: size, shape barriers, and links or order versus disorder,
apparent age and condition, height, and scale. Desirable qualities of each factor
however are not discussed.
It has been established that different classroom design and shapes
influence how active elementary and secondary students arein the learning
process Getzels, 1974). The results of this study show that levels of activity (as
opposed to passivity) were enhanced by learning "modules" or stations at various
points in the classroom, and to a lesser degree by circular (rather than the tra-
litional rows and columns) seating patterns. Getzels stopped short however of
recommending a particular design due to different learning requirements of
individual students and various subject matter.
An excellent analysis of the physical environment of the college
classroom was published by Whisnat in 1971. Although an informal analysis
rather than an actual study (no data was collected) his description bears
consideration here. He Describes the campus as insular by design, with external
boundaries (of walls sidewalks or grass) and a central core of academic buildings
and/or a grassy common area. Each discipline is separated by its own "box" or
building, purposefully distant and separate from any other discipline or lifestyle.
Whisnat (1971) asks us to" consider the classroom itself: its existence and
separateness from a variety of other spaces tells the student that what happens
there is and ought to be abstracted from what is happening anywhere else." In
addition, the first row of chairs serves as an effective boundary between the active
instructor (whose movements and freedoms are almost completely unbounded )
and the passive learner (whose location and position are fixed, and movement is
extremely limited).
Visual Factors - The planned use of light and shade, light intensity, and light quality are important considerations in space design (Rappoport 1982) and have
had at least some study in both general and classroom settings. Hehrabian &
Russell (1974) found that extremely low levels of light were neither pleasurable
nor productive in task settings, and that increased levels of white light increased
activity. Each individual reached a certain point however at which further
increases in light intensity were found to be both counterproductive and
undesirable.
Two studies on light in elementary classrooms were reported by
VandenHagel (1971). He limited light by eliminating windows and controlling
the type of indoor lighting used (he also used traditional windowed classrooms
for control groups). His findings agreed with that of Mehrabian and Russell
(1974), and further found that student academic achievement was not influenced
by amount or type of light (except to extremes), or by the presence or absence of
windows. Informally however, the teachers in both VandenHagel's studies
reported that they preferred the windowless classrooms because they could
control the behavior of the students by varying the light levels and weather
conditions and other activity outside the building were not a distraction to their
students.
Color is the other studied aspect of visual stimulation in the physical
environment; and although research studies in the classroom are few the findings
are remarkably in agreement.
Rapoport's study (1982) included consideration of this issue and states in
part that "colors seem to have some striking commonalities in their psychological
effects such as levels of arousal" (p. 114).
Pleasure and activity are two elements measured in relation to color by
Mehrabian and Russell (1974). They found that pleasure is heightened by
brightness (especially with warm colors) and contrast or variability of color
usage. Their results produced a pleasurable scale of colors ranging from the
(cool) to least (hot) pleasurable colors (blue, green, purple, red, and yellow
respectively). They found physical activity increased by the use of warm colors.
Schuh (1980) basically duplicated these findings in college residential
settings. He recommends the intentional use of "dramatic color patterns rather
than institutional "drab colors" for all applications.
Other research in the use of color to elicit behavior patterns has been done
in prisons and hospitals and fundamentally supports the findings discussed here.
Aural Factors - In general environments, non-musical noise has been
found to increase arousal as pitch (frequency) and loudness ( amplitude) are
increased (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). The same study also found that when
music was used, loudness and tempo had a direct positive relationship to both
respiration and physical activity.
One need only attend two otherwise identical sporting events one, with an
effective pep band and one without, to personally validate the impact of aural
stimulation on behavior elicitation. Unfortunately, very little research could be
found on this topic (even in the field of music).
Touch and Physical Stimulation - VandenHagel's (1971) research
produced absolutely no variation in the learning capabilities of students who were
in rooms at between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. When Mehrabian and Russell
(1974) varied the temperature within individual rooms however, they did note an
increased arousal rate when large deviations in temperature (in either direction)
were experienced. They also noted that the Ievel of humidity has an inverse
relationship to activity and stimulation.
Taste and Smell - These are the Ieast studied of all the sensory input in terms of person-environment interaction. Indeed, only the comprehensive and
general research by Mehrabian and Russell (1971) included them at all. They
reported that arousal was increased directly by the level of unusualness of the
stimulation. Although pleasurable unusual odors and tastes elicited less violent
arousals, it was the degree to which the stimulus was perceived as being unusual
that determined the degree of arousal elicited.
Implications
What then are the implications and potcntial applications for the college
classroom? I believe that some major trends apparent in the available research
presented here could and should be applied to classroom design in an effort to
enhance the quality of the educational experience. In making extrapolations from
general research and from studies in elementary and secondary classrooms
however, it should be remembered that different effects may be desired. For
example, while everything possible should be done to calm the middle school
student to reduce undesirable distractive behavior, the college student would
probably benefit more from a more stimulating environment designed to assist in
staying awake.
Some recommendations offered by the authors considered for this paper
are quite directly applicable to the collegiate setting. Whisnat (1971) recommends
the breaking-down wherever possible of the physical boundaries between the
campus and community, different academic departments, and student academic
and non-academic space. Conyne (1975) suggests that small lecture classes and
small group discussion learning formats "affect students the most positively."
The most wide-ranging recommendations come from VandenHagel
(1972), who is more concerned with the potential (and so far mostly neglected)
effects of carbon monoxide and "air-borne...disease-causing organisms'. He
recommends that each classroom and school building design be evaluated by a
team consisting of a biologist, psychologist, biometeorologist, ophthamologist,
teacher, students, janitor, lighting engineer, and an architect.
With all the above intormation in mind, it is proposed that the following
characteristics be approximated to as great a degree as possible in existing, and
designs for future, college classrooms in an effort to maximize student learning
through within the physical environment:
1. Expand on the "living-learning center" concept of the early seventies whereby students live, study a variety of subjects, recreate, etc. within a reletively open structure.
2. Keep buildings to as few stories as possible. and keep classrooms in the lower floors of taller buildings.
3. All classroom buildings should contain a large lobby area, through which
everyone must pass to enter or leave the building, and which contains lounge
furnishings.
4. Keep classrooms neat, organized, and clean.
5. Have enrollments been assigned to each room that provide for a maximum of
space for each student.
6. Have movable student seating (as opposed to fixed) that is designed to be
comfortable and does not restrict movement. Each instructor should then arrange
the seating for maximum educational impact based on an assessment of the
students' learning styles, the instructor's teaching styles, the subject matter to be
taught, and the teaching techniques to be used.
7. Install variable and controllable, indirect, white lighting that can be dimmed or brightened.
8. Minimize windows.
9. Insulate the rooms to minimize potentially distracting noises.
10. Decorate with a variety of warm colors in graphic designs and other creative
patterns.
11. Continually vary the temperature, but always keep it between 65 and 75
degrees Fahrenheit.
12. Keep the humidity low at all times.
Conclusion
There is certainly more to the physical environment and its affects on students than typically meets the eye (pun intended) of the architect,
administrator, teacher, or student. One of the intentions of this article has been to heighten the awareness of this issue. The old saying that a good teacher can teach in any setting is true, but it is equally true that a good teacher can teach even better in an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning.
Much more research, designed specifically to address the issue of the
physical environment of the college classroom and its impact on learning, needs
to be conducted to further expand and refine the recommendations offered here.
Editor's Note: Tim Griffin can be reached at 5266 Griffen House Court,
Columbus, OH 43235.
Ahrentzen, S., Jue, B. M., Skorpanish, M. A., & Evans, G. W. (1982). School
environment and stress. In G. W. Evans (Ed.), Environmental stress (pp. 225-255). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Conyne, R. (1975). Environmental assessment: Mapping for counselor action.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 9, l50-154.
Getzels, J. (1974). Images of the classroom and visions of the learner. School
Review, 82, 527-540.
Holahan, C. J., & Wilcox, B. (1977). Residential satisfaction and friendship
formation in high and low rise student housing: An interactional analysis. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 70, 237-241.
Holahan, C. J., & Wilcox, B. (1978). Ecologieal strategies in community
psychology: A case study. Amencan Journal of Community Psychology, 5,
425-433.
Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Moos, R. H. (1987). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Myriek, R & Marx, B. S. (1968). An exploratory study of the relationship
between high school building design and student learning. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Research: Office of Education: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
Rappoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A non verbal
communications approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schuh, J. H. (1980). Housing. In W.H. Morrill & J.C. Hurst (Eds.), Dimensions of intervention for student development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
VandenHagel, B.J. (1971). The windowless school: Some biological and
economical considerations. Woodstock, Ontario, Canada: Field Studies Center.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 057 452)
Whisnant, D. E. (1971). The university as a space and the future of the university. Journal of Higher Education, 42(2), 85-102.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Other Resources
Banning, J.H. (1980). Campus ecology: Its impact on college student personnel
work. In D.G. Creamer (Ed.), Student development in higher education:
Theories, practices, and future directions (ACPA Media Publication No. 27).
Cincinnati: American College Personnel Association.
Conyne, R., & Lamb, D. (1978). A role for the professional psychologist in
campus environmental change. Professional Psychology, 9, 301-307.
Deutsch, D. (Ed.). (1982). The psychology of music. New York: Academic
Press.
Huebner, L.A. (1979). Redesigning campus environments. New Directions for
Student Services, No. 8. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Provost, J. A. & Anchors, S. (1987). Applications of the Myers-Briggs type
indicator in higher education. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Schmertz, M. F. (Ed.). (1972). Campus planning and design. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
White, W. P. (Ed.). (1979). Resources in environment and behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.