PurposeThe purpose of this study is to compare student achievement with three school design classifications: movement and circulation, day lighting, and views.Design/methodology/approachFrom a sample of 71 schools, measures of these three school designs, taken with a ten‐point Likert scale, are compared to students' outcomes defined by six parts of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Reading comprehension, Reading vocabulary, Language arts, Mathematics, Social studies, and Science. Data are tested through reduced regression analysis, where the difference between R2 of the reduced regression is compared to the R2 of the full regression. This result, in each case, is defined as the effect of the school's physical environment on students' outcomes represented by achievement scores on the ITBS.FindingsSignificant effects are found for Reading vocabulary, Reading comprehension, Language arts, Mathematics, and Science.Practical implicationsThe study's findings regarding movement and circulation patterns, natural light, and classrooms with views have implications for designing new schools or modifying existing structures. They are especially important to school leaders, educational planners, and architects who engage in programming for educational facilities.Originality/valueThis study is part of original research efforts at the University of Georgia, USA. Since 1997, the focus of research in the University of Georgia's School Design and Planning Laboratory (SDPL) has been the measurement of the impact of the school's physical environment on aspects of affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning. All SDPL research has been quantitative in nature, where measures of the physical environment were compared to measures of student outcomes. There are two immediate values to these studies: educational leaders may use the findings to assess their existing school facilities and determine where improvements will have the greatest impact, or planners may use the findings to guide architects in the design and construction of new educational facilities.

Limited, dated information is available to school administrators concerning the influence that the built learning environment has on academic achievement. Given the population increases, volatile standardized test scores, demand for new schools, and deplorable conditions of school facilities in the United States, it is timely to investigate this neglected aspect of educational research. In the face of radical technological changes and curriculum innovations, much of the new public school architectural design is tied firmly to past and outdated practices. Currently reform advocates push for program change to occur, while voicing minimal concern for the often obsolete and shabby physical environments of the schools where the program improvement is to evolve. With these problems representing the educational need, the specific purpose of this study was to determine how school architectural design factors might influence student achievement scores in elementary schools. A total of seven design factors were found to correlate with student learning outcomes.

This descriptive study investigated the possible effects of selected school design patterns on third-grade students' academic achievement. A reduced regression analysis revealed the effects of school design components (patterns) on ITBS achievement data, after including control variables, for a sample of third-grade students drawn from 24 elementary schools. The sample means on the ITBS per school represented approximately 1,916 third-grade students. The independent variable set for developing a possible explanation of student achievement was the school's physical environment, defined as four sets of design patterns: movement and circulation (e.g., adequate personal space and efficient movement patterns throughout the school), large group meeting places (e.g., social gathering places), day lighting and views (e.g., windows with natural light), and instructional neighborhoods (e.g., large and small group areas that accommodate wet and dry activities). Each of the four full regression models, which included subsets of the design elements, explained between 2% and 7% of additional variance in achievement when compared to the reduced model, which included a measure of school SES. Therefore, each of the four design variables was positively related to student achievement, even after controlling for school SES.

No abstract

No abstract