Acouple of years ago I led a study, which provided the evidence for the first time that the physical characteristics of the classroom not only affect the learning progress of primary school pupils, but impact very significantly. Taking everything together the measured impact of the classroom design factors explained 16% of the variation in learning of the 3766 pupils in the 153 classrooms assessed.
You can read the full results of what we called, the HEAD (holistic evidence and design) study in my Clever Classrooms illustrated guide. It is free to download at cleverclassroomsdesign.co.uk.
We really wanted to focus on the viewpoint of the pupil in the classroom so we developed a special SIN model to guide the data collection and analysis. The results showed that the N (naturalness) factors accounted for just under half of the 16% impact. It’s great to be able to prove this, but it was expected, since it includes such basic issues as sufficient light, good air quality and effective temperature control.
Next up was the level of ambient S (stimulation) provided by the visual complexity and colour of the classroom space. This is something that has often been debated, but there is little agreement. Our results clearly showed that a mid-level of stimulation is optimal for learning – not too chaotic and not too boring. Obvious maybe, once you know.
Perhaps the most surprising element of the HEAD approach was the idea that the level of I (individualisation) could perhaps be so important for learning. This was driven by consideration of how people process sensory information in their brains and the fact that we build up individual preferences.
To test out this idea, two aspects of the classrooms were studied: the opportunity for ownership and the availability of flexibility for the pupils and their teacher.