Increasing of Creativity, Happiness and Connection with other Peers for Iranian Students with Emphasis on the Value of Open and Semi-Open Spaces in Schools (Case Study: KASHAN)

Subject Areas : Landscape Architecture

Fayal Sadat Siadati ¹ ( Young Researchers and Elite Club, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University )
Hamid Majedi ² ( College of architecture and urban, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran )

Received: 2015-05-24 Accepted : 2018-03-12 Published : 2021-11-12

Keywords: Non-Fixed Elements, Outdoor Education, Open and Semi-Open Spaces, School Condition, Semi-Fixed Elements,

Abstract :

ABSTRACT Several studies have examined the relationship between school conditions and student achievement, and have confirmed that the two ideas are related to each other. The present study focuses on reviewing and comparing the views of 350 students and 60 teachers of 5 elementary schools in Kashan city about 4 hypothesis of designing open and semi-open spaces of school. Therefore, the aim of this study is determination the importance of 4 hypothesis from the viewpoints of students and their teachers to understand which of hypothesis are suitable and which of them are not suitable to use in designing of open and semi-open school spaces. This study is non-experimental and a descriptive research “methodology” design was used. The results of this study indicated that for designing open and semi-open spaces of school, using Non-fixed and dynamic elements is best idea; also using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting, is a good idea; but using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol or Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space are not a suitable idea for designing open and semi-open spaces of school.

Full-Text:



Increasing of Creativity, Happiness and Connection with other Peers for Iranian Students with Emphasis on the Value of Open and Semi-Open Spaces in Schools (Case Study: KASHAN)

 

 

 

ABSTRACT: Several studies have examined the relationship between school conditions and student achievement, and have confirmed that the two ideas are related to each other. The present study focuses on reviewing and comparing the views of 350 students and 60 teachers of 5 elementary schools in Kashan city about 4 hypothesis of designing open and semi-open spaces of school. Therefore, the aim of this study is determination the importance of 4 hypothesis from the viewpoints of students and their teachers to understand which of hypothesis are suitable and which of them are not suitable to use in designing of open and semi-open school spaces. This study is non-experimental and a descriptive research “methodology” design was used. The results of this study indicated that for designing open and semi-open spaces of school, using Non-fixed and dynamic elements is best idea; also using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting, is a good idea; but using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol or Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space are not a suitable idea for designing open and semi-open spaces of school.

 

KEYWORDS: Outdoor Education; Open and Semi-Open Spaces; School Condition; Non-Fixed Elements; Semi-Fixed Elements

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Primary school lessons normally take place in some form of classroom. This normal life in school places large demands on regulation of behaviour. In children's lives there are a lot of instigators for actions in every milieu and situation. When children grow older, the cortical activity starts to regulate the action instigation from the limbic system. The school system makes demands of action regulation for children. In outdoor education the many instigators for actions are not under the same demands for regulation as inside the classroom.(Fiskum&Jacobsen, 2012a, 80). Outdoor education influenced behavioural changes in a positive direction. During outdoor education, there were only minor differences between leisure time and pedagogical time, with the most desired result in leisure time. In classroom, the difference was enormous, with the most desired results in leisure time.(Fiskum&Jacobsen, 2012b, 27)

Research has shown the benefits of taking the pupils out, for example, to a nearby forest or a beach, taking into consideration elements such as the benefits of less demands of action regulation, real world experiences, motivation and behavioural benefits, less crowdedness giving benefits and more enjoyment as well as less aggression and behavioural problems, cooperative play and civil behavior, mood benefits, which might broaden the scope of attention and action repertoires.(Fiskum&Jacobsen, 2012c, 44)

 

2. research goal

The present study focuses on reviewing and comparing the views of 350 students and 60 teachers of 5 elementary schools in Kashan city about 4 hypothesis of designing open and semi-open spaces of school. Because students spend most of their day and year in schools, the school, as the physical environment in which learning occurs, might be one of the components that affect student performance. Therefore, the aim of this study is determination the importance of these 4 hypothesis from the viewpoints of students and their teachers to understand which of hypothesis are suitable and which of them are not suitable to use in garden courtyard for increasing student achievement and improving their behavior.

 

3. research methodology

This study targeted selected urban elementary schools in Kashan city. Since this study is non-experimental, a descriptive research “methodology” design was used. Descriptive research is a type of quantitative research used to explore the possible causal relationships between different variables (Borg & Gall, 1996, 8). The target population for this study was 350 students and 60 teachers of 5 elementary schools in Kashan city. 410 questionnaires, contains 23 questions, have been administrated between students and their teachers and results analyzed with SPSS software.

 

4. RESEARCH History and literature

4.1. School Condition and Student’s Behavior and Achievement

The physical condition of a school facility often conveys a message to students about the overall concern for their education. If a school building is well maintained, or at least attempts to maintain it are evidenced, then the students may assume that there are expectations of good behavior and high achievement. If the faculty and staff maintain the facility poorly, then students may assume that low demands will be made of them. Messages from parents and peers mayor may not reinforce impressions obtained from the school environment. Students can become either positively or negatively affected by what they see. (Hines, 1996, 1)

In order to facilitate delivering a good education to learners, schools need to be conducive to learning because a high quality education might not be as accessible in an unfavorable environment, such as a poorly maintained building or poorly maintained school yard. The context for this study assumes that the design, maintenance, and operation of schools and other educational institutions must be taken into account as factors that contribute to a positive learning environment for students and working environment for the faculty and staff (Christopher, 1988, 21).

According to Cash a school “is a promise of the future. Schools should reflect the environment of success. It is a physical representation of a public message about the value of education“(Cash, 1993, 12). Winston Churchill said, “We shape our buildings; therefore, our buildings shape us” (Gardner, 1981, 8). These comments suggest that the school environment may be just as important as the choice of methods and curriculum to ensuring a positive outcome. Creating an effective school entails designing the facility specifically as an educational environment, which is a complicated issue. A well-designed school (building and courtyard) will support its users.(Birch & Johnstone, 1975, 73; Knirk, 1993, 15). By addressing a broad spectrum of issues that include occupant-related issues, such as creating a physically comfortable environment with adequate lighting, temperature and noise control, technology and equipment, and personal user access needs. These features address the requirements of the users of a particular space so that the classrooms work well for both teachers and students.

A well-planned facility will be able to accommodate changes in use (e.g., class size, technology upgrades, and perhaps flexible-use rooms), be easy to maintain and upgrade, be energy efficient, and address the safety concerns of the occupants (Galluzzo& Bar, 1999, 118; Sydoriak, 1993, 15). The custodial staff needs to be trained to maintain and operate the facility, and costs associated with this need to be included in the costs budgeted for operating the building. Hathaway asserted that children perceive that their schools reflect important things related to their communities and also believe that good schools help them to make good transitions to life in the community. (Hathaway, 1991, 29). Until recently, professionals involved in school design have assumed that as long as certain minimum standards for size, acoustics, lighting, and temperature were met, a productive environment existed and teaching and learning would proceed normally (Conners, 1982, 4). However, more recent research has determined that the physical environment and the learning experience cannot be separated and are considered to be integral parts of each other (Taylor &Gousie, 1988, 27).

Prior to this awareness of the relationship between the school environment and student learning, it was felt that the environment only affected the consciousness when it caused particular pleasure, harm, discomfort, or stress. Now increasing evidence argues that an improperly designed physical environment in a school may cause stress to the occupants of the facility, both directly and indirectly (Conners, 1982, 5). Edwards confirmed the idea that student achievement can be influenced by the school condition and environment. [Edwards 1991: 420]. Thus, the trend is moving to where educators and facility planners are considering other dimensions or factors in a school’s physical environment that have an influence on those involved – teachers and students in the educational process (Conners, 1982, 6).

One common topic in school facility planning concerns the relationships between school building conditions and student achievement, and student behavior (Earthman&Lemasters, 2000, 157). Although both the physical environment and the building conditions have been documented as having an impact on student achievement and behavior, there have been relatively few studies that examine this issue in great detail (Earthman, 1985, 16; Faust, 1980, 12).

Several studies (Bowers & Burkett, 1987, 280; Cash, 1993, 12; Cervantes, 1999, 33; Earthman et al., 1996, 29; Edwards, 1991, 350; Hines, 1996, 106; Lanham, 1999, 92) have examined the relationship between school building conditions and student achievement, and have confirmed that the two ideas are related to each other.

 

4.2. Outdoor Education Benefits

Research have shown outdoor education to give positive impact on children’s motor and verbal agitation, increased variability of emotions, more positive communications and more physical activity (Fiskum & Jacobsen, 2012a, 82). Physical inactivity may be considered as a risk for many children (Bailey, 2000; Bjorklund & Bering, 2000, 354; Carey, 1992, 581). At school they are mostly seated behind their desk or a table, and after school many children are tempted to sit still with a computer or watch television. Even if many children seem to adapt to a high degree of physical inactivity, it may have temporary and future negative effects to adapt to surroundings which is different to children’s biological needs (op. cit.), as well as learning strategies are becoming increasingly abstract (Bjorklund & Bering, 2000, 357). Taking the pupils outside the school building may give different benefits like the possibility to learn more directly and less abstractly, and to be more physical active. This may lead to behavioral benefits (Dyment, 2005, 34; Dyment & Bell, 2008; Fox & Avramidis, 2003, 279; Grahn, 1997), mood benefits (Ozdemir & Yilmaz, 2008, 295; Russell & Newton, 2008, 296) and learning benefits (Canaris, 1995, 266; Dismore & Bailey, 2005, 13; Smith & Motsenbocker, 2005, 440). But children are different in many ways and have variations of needs.

Temperament is a dimension for investigation of individual differences. Risk is often associated with temperamental style. Most children have an easy temperament which is associated with low risk for development of psychopathology and behavior problems (Mendez et al., 2002, 1092).

The results of Fiskum&Jacobsen research have shown different outcomes within different subgroups of children’s temperament: The children with an easy or a withdrawal temperament are good functioning both indoor and outdoor. Their outcomes from outdoor education are an increased vitality, which might be seen as a short time benefit. The children with a difficult or a mixed temperament increased their vitality in outdoor education too. Additionally they often showed unwanted behavior indoor, which were mainly absent when they were observed outdoor. For these children, outdoor education may contribute to reduce behavioral problems, and consequently give these children a long time benefit. The variables of physical activity, variability in emotions and amount of positive communication are mostly guided by the school conditions, while motor and verbal agitation were guided by both school condition and temperament as well as gender.(Fiskum&Jacobsen, 2012b, 31)

 

5. GENERAL STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE

After examination the viewpoints of researchers in research literature, we have been drawn out four hypothesis and purposes of designing open and semi-open spaces of schools (table 1) and created our research questionnaire.

In table 1, we have shown the hypothesis of designing open and semi-open spaces of school and purposes of these hypothesis and the questions those are related to these hypothesis in questionnaire.

Our questionnaires contain 23 questions. Each question has five options to answer. These options are:

1)       Completely dissident

2)       Dissident

3)       Neutral

4)       Agree

5)       Completely agree

Because our research questionnaire was not a standard questionnaire (standard questionnaire in this field not exist), before examination the viewpoints of students and teachers, we should check reliability and validity of questionnaire and correlation between the answers of students and teachers to questionnaire.

6. RELIABILITY OF QUESTIONNAIRE

We have shown Cronbach's alpha coefficient for 4 groups of variables in table 2.

As we have shown in table 2, Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the answers of teachers are between 0.730 to 0.791 and Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the answers of students are between 0.765 to 0.845; So reliability of questionnaire is acceptable.

 

 

Table1. Hypothesis and purposes of designing open and semi-open spaces

Hypothesis of designing garden yard	Questions of questionnaire	purposes of hypothesis
Using Non-fixed and dynamic elements such as flexibility of natural elements	1-2-3-4-5-6-7	Increasing of creativity, feelings and emotions of students
Using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting	8-9-12-21	Increasing of happiness and connection with other peers
Using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol	10-13-14-15-17-18-20	Increasing of relaxation(Maintaining a pleasant environmental conditions)
Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space	11-16-19-22-23	Increasing of the sense of security, safety and comfort of students

 

Table2. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for 4 groups of variables

Variables	Cronbach's alpha coefficient(students)	Cronbach's alpha coefficient(teachers)
1-2-3-4-5-6-7	0.845	0.791
8-9-12-21	0.765	0.775
10-13-14-15-17-18-20	0.789	0.730
11-16-19-22-23	0.769	0.745

 

 

7. CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF QUESTIONNAIRE

In table 1, we have shown the hypothesis of designing open and semi-open spaces and purposes of these hypothesis and the questions those are related to these hypothesis in questionnaire. In table 3 we have shown the relationships between questions in each group from the answers of students to questionnaires. For example in group of using "Non-fixed and dynamic elements such as flexibility of natural elements", that contain question number 1 to 7; the relation factor between question number 1 and question number 2 is 0.632. As it is evident; all the numbers in table 3 are greater than 0.5; so relationship between questions in each group is acceptable.

Also in table 4 we have shown the relationships between questions in each group from component matrix. All the numbers in table 4 are greater than 0.5; so relationship between questions in each group is acceptable.

 

8. CORRELATION BETWEEN Z SCORE OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

We have shown Pearson correlation between Z score (mean) of the answers of students and teachers in table 5 and figure 1. As we have shown in table 5, Pearson correlation between Z score (mean) of the answers of students and teachers is 0.791; so two groups' views on the importance of each variable are very similar together.

 

 

Table3. Relationships between questions in each group

		q1	q8	q10	q11
Correlation	q1	1.000
	q2	0.632
	q3	0.844
	q4	0.754
	q5	0.557
	q6	0.844
	q7	0.611
	q8					1.000
	q9					0.572
	q10						1.000
	q11							1.000
	q12							0.585
	q13									0.699
	q14									0.529
	q15									0.552
	q16										0.652
	q17									0.577
	q18									0.660
	q19											0.790
	q20									0.628
	q21									0.536
	q22													0.496
	q23													0.74

 

Table4. Relationships between questions in each group from component matrix

	Component
	1	2	3	4
q1	0.817	0.217	-0.386	0.198
q2	0.582	0.227	0.071	0.054
q3	0.968	0.026	-0.139	0.092
q4	0.780	0.283	0.038	-0.290
q5	0.572	0.294	0.071	-0.099
q6	0.968	0.026	-0.139	0.092
q7	0.808	-0.205	0.398	-0.167
q8	0.358	0.761	0.225	0.285
q9	0.467	0.599	-0.327	0.263
q10	0.350	0.022	0.601	-0.415
q11	-0.092	0.083	0.142	0.688
q12	0.041	0.641	0.694	0.449
q13	0.224	0.610	0.626	-0.300
q14	0.387	0.450	0.549	-0.243
q15	-0.283	0.878	0.533	-0.217
q16	-0.677	0.264	-0.028	0.590
q17	0.025	0.166	0.673	0.079
q18	-0.074	0.184	0.654	0.400
q19	-0.159	0.092	0.119	0.795
q20	-0.110	0.382	0.842	-0.303
q21	0.293	0.570	0.296	-0.003
q22	-0.324	0.465	0.120	0.573
q23	-0.296	-0.037	0.760	-0.472

 

 

Table5. Pearson correlation between Z score

		Z score(mean)	Z score(mean)
Z score(mean)	Pearson Correlation	1	.791
	Sig. (1-tailed)		.000
	N	23	23
Z score(mean)	Pearson Correlation	.791	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	.000
	N	23	23

 

Figure1. Relationship between Pearson correlation of Z score of students and teachers

 

 

9. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To evaluate the opinion of students and teachers, we have calculated total sum, mean for each question according to equation 1 & 2. We have calculated standard score (Z) to evaluate the results. (Equation3)

In equation3; Z is standard score of each question; Xi is the mean of each question (equation 2); µ is the mean of the mean of all 23 questions and S is standard deviation of all 23 questions. If Z score of a question is greater than 0.00, that question is important for students or teachers and if Z score of a question is smaller than 0.00, that question is not important for students or teachers; also whatever the Z score of each question is greater than other questions; that question is more significant for students and teachers than another questions. We have calculated first, second, third and fourth quartiles of Z score to determine degree of importance of each question for students and teachers. A question in fourth quartile is more significant for students and teachers than a question in first quartile. In tables 6 – 9 we have shown, sum, Z score, ranking of Z, number of quartile of Z for each hypothesis of designing garden yard. In figure 3 & 4, we have shown normal distribution of Z score of students and teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          (Eq.3)

 

Table6. Results for hypothesis 1; using Non-fixed and dynamic elements such as flexibility of natural elements for Increasing of creativity, feelings and emotions of students

Number of quartile	Ranking of Z	Z score	Sum of each question	Number of students or teachers choose each 5options					Group	Number of question
3	8	0.634	1434	157	104	58	28	3	Students	1
4	3	1.003	275	35	25	0	0	0	Teachers
4	3	0.863	1483	131	180	33	3	3	Students	2
4	2	1.105	280	40	20	0	0	0	Teachers
3	6	0.755	1460	178	63	103	3	3	Students	3
4	4	0.903	270	35	20	5	0	0	Teachers
4	1	1.107	1535	153	188	3	3	3	Students	4
3	7	0.700	260	25	30	5	0	0	Teachers
4	2	0.928	1497	115	226	3	3	3	Students	5
4	6	0.802	265	35	15	10	0	0	Teachers
3	7	0.755	1460	178	63	103	3	3	Students	6
4	1	1.409	295	55	5	0	0	0	Teachers
2	12	0.264	1355	128	123	43	38	18	Students	7
4	8	0.700	260	25	30	5	0	0	Teachers

 

Table7. Results for hypothesis 2; using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting for increasing of happiness and connection with other peers

Number of quartile	Ranking of Z	Z score	Sum of each question	Number of students or teachers choose each 5 options					Group	Number of question
3	9	0.606	1428	146	95	103	3	3	Students	8
3	10	0.396	245	15	35	10	0	0	Teachers
1	19	-0.742	1140	3	198	63	58	28	Students	9
2	12	0.295	240	15	35	5	5	0	Teachers
4	4	0.840	1478	146	145	53	3	3	Students	12
3	9	0.700	260	30	20	10	0	0	Teachers
4	5	0.760	1461	109	202	33	3	3	Students	21
4	5	0.903	270	35	20	5	0	0	Teachers

 

Table8. Results for hypothesis 3; using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol for Increasing of relaxation

Number of quartile	Ranking of Z	Z score	Sum of each question	Number of students or teachers choose each 5 options					Group	Number of question
1	22	-1.910	890	28	28	128	88	78	Students	10
2	16	-0.515	200	0	25	30	5	0	Teachers
3	10	0.545	1415	93	218	3	33	3	Students	13
3	11	0.396	245	25	15	20	0	0	Teachers
3	11	0.755	1370	48	263	3	33	3	Students	14
2	13	0.092	230	5	40	15	0	0	Teachers
2	13	0.218	1345	88	128	128	3	3	Students	15
2	14	0.092	230	5	40	15	0	0	Teachers
2	17	-0.157	1265	108	58	128	53	3	Students	17
2	17	-0.616	195	20	5	20	0	15	Teachers
2	18	-0.507	1190	63	23	258	3	3	Students	18
1	20	-1.123	170	0	5	40	15	0	Teachers
2	14	0.124	1325	93	98	153	3	3	Students	20
1	19	-1.021	175	10	20	0	15	15	Teachers

 

 

 

Table9. Results for hypothesis 4; Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space for increasing of the sense of security, safety and comfort of students

Number of quartile	Ranking of Z	Z score	Sum of each question	Number of students or teachers choose each 5 options					Group	Number of question
1	20	-1.228	1036	23	63	144	117	3	Students	11
1	18	-0.717	190	0	10	50	0	0	Teachers
1	21	-1.439	991	93	23	53	94	87	Students	16
1	21	-1.427	155	0	0	35	25	0	Teachers
2	16	-0.039	1290	63	123	158	3	3	Students	19
2	15	-0.110	220	0	40	20	0	0	Teachers
2	15	0.007	1300	93	73	178	3	3	Students	22
1	22	-1.628	145	0	0	25	35	0	Teachers
1	23	-2.716	718	28	28	3	166	125	Students	23
1	23	-2.338	110	0	0	5	40	15	Teachers

 

Figure3. Normal distribution of Z score of students

 

Figure4. Normal distribution of Z score of teachers

 

Table10. Comparing the mean of Z score for each hypothesis

Number of quartile	Mean of Z score	Purposes	Idea of designing garden yard	Group	Hypothesis
2, 3, 4	0.758	Increasing of creativity, feelings and emotions of students	Using Non-fixed and dynamic elements such as flexibility of natural elements	Students	1
3, 4	0.946			Teachers
1, 3, 4	0.366	Increasing of happiness and connection with other peers	Using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting	Students	2
2, 3, 4	0.574			Teachers
1, 2, 3	-0.133	Increasing of relaxation(Maintaining a pleasant environmental conditions)	Using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol	Students	3
1, 2, 3	-0.385			Teachers
1, 2	-1.083	Increasing of the sense of security, safety and comfort of students	Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space	Students	4
1, 2	-1.244			Teachers

 

 

As we have shown in table 10, the mean of Z score of hypothesis No.1, from the comments of students is 0.758 and from the comments of teachers is 0.946; the mean of Z score of hypothesis2, from the comments of students is 0.366 and from the comments of teachers is 0.574; the mean of Z score of hypothesis 3, from the comments of students is -0.133 and from the comments of teachers is -0.385; the mean of Z score of hypothesis 4 from the comments of students is -1.083 and from the comments of teachers is-1.244.

So hypothesis 1, using Non-fixed and dynamic elements such as flexibility of natural elements, has first rank against other hypothesis according to comments of students and teachers. For designing open and semi-open spaces, using Non-fixed and dynamic elements is best idea; also using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting, is a good idea; but using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol or Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space are not a suitable idea for designing open and semi-open spaces of school.

 

10. CONCLUSION

The present study focuses on reviewing and comparing the views of 350 students and 60 teachers of 5 elementary schools about 4 hypothesis of designing open and semi-open spaces of school. Because students spend most of their day and year in schools, the school, as the physical environment in which learning occurs, might be one of the components that affect student performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was determination the importance of 4 hypothesis from the viewpoints of students and their teachers to understand which of these hypothesis were suitable and which of them were not suitable to use in garden courtyard for increasing student achievement and improving their behavior.

The results of this study indicated that for designing open and semi-open spaces of school, using Non-fixed and dynamic elements for increasing of creativity, feelings and emotions of students is best idea; also using semi-fixed elements such as temporary semi-open spaces, furniture for sitting for increasing of happiness and connection with other peers is a good idea; but using fixed elements such as shape, form, decoration, material, symbol or Position and extent of school space such as layout and relationships between space are not a suitable idea for designing open and semi-open spaces of school.

 

REFERENCES

1.       Bailey, D. (2000). Is anyone out there listening? Quest, 52(4), 344-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2000.10491721

2.       Bjorklund, D. F., & Bering, J. M. (2000). The evolved child - Applying evolutionary developmental psychology to modern schooling. Learning and Individual Differences, 12(4), 347-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00047-X

3.       Birch, J., &Johnstone, B. (1975). Designing schools and schooling for the handicapped: A guide to the dynamic interaction of space, instructional materials, facilities, educational objectives and teaching methods. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publ.

4.       Borg, W. R., Gall, M. D. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. (6th ed). N.Y: Longman Publishers.

5.       Bowers, J. H. & Burkett, G. W. (1987). Relationship of student achievement and characteristics in two selected school facility environmental settings. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: 64th Annual International conference of the Council of Educational Facility Planners. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 278-286).

6.       Canaris, I. (1995). Growing Foods for Growing Minds: Integrating Gardening and Nutrition Education into the Total Curriculum. Children's Environments, 12(2), 264-270.

7.       Carey, W. B. (1992). Temperament issues in the school-aged child. Pediatr.Clin.North Am., 39(3), 569-584.

8.       Cash, C. (1993). Building condition and student achievement and behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 03A.

9.       Cervantes, R. P. (1999). The condition of school facilities as related to student academic achievement and behavior (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 03A.

10.       Christopher, G. (1988). “Does the quality of the school environment affect the quality ofour children’s education?” CEFPI’s Educational Facility Planner, 26 (4), 21-22.

11.       Conners, D. A. (1982). The school’s designed environment implications for understanding stress. CEFPI’s Educational Facility Planner, 20 (1), 4-6.

12.       Dismore, H., & Bailey, R. (2005). "If Only": Outdoor and Adventurous Activities and Generalized Academic Development. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 5(1), 9-19.

13.       Dyment, J. E. (2005). Gaining Ground: The power and Potential of School Ground Greening in the Toronto District School Board. 1-53. Retrieved from http://www.evergreen.ca/docs/res/Gaining-Ground.pdf

14.       Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2008). Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sites for promoting physical

15.       Earthman, G. I. (1985). Evaluating the impact of the building environment on the individual. CEFPI’s Educational Facility Planner, 23 (4), 15-17.

16.       Earthman, G. I., Cash, C., & Van Berkum, D. (1996). Student achievement and behavior and school building condition. The Journal of School Business Management, 8 (3), 27-37.

17.       Earthman, G. I. &Lemasters, L. K. (2000, October). Report on research on the relationship between school buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. Los Angeles, CA: Report submitted to the Los Angeles Chapter-ACLU.

18.       Edwards, M. M. (1991). Building conditions, parental involvement and student achievement in the D.C public school system. Georgetown University, Master’s Thesis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338-743).

19.       Faust, R. C. (1980). The view from here. CEFPI’s Educational Facility Planner, 18 (2),2

20.       Fiskum, T. A., & Jacobsen, K. (2012a). Outdoor education gives fewer demands for action regulation and an increased variability of affordances. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 76-99. DOI: 10.1080/14729679.2012.702532

21.       Fiskum, T. A., & Jacobsen, K. (2012b). Individual Differences and Possible Effects from Outdoor Education：Long Time and Short Time Benefits. World Journal of Education, 20-33.

22.       Fiskum, T. A., & Jacobsen, K. (2012c). Relation Between the School Environment and the Children’s Behaviour. The Open Education Journal, 2012, 5, 39-51.

23.       Fox, P., & Avramidis, E. (2003). An evaluation of an outdoor education programme for students with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.Date of Publication: Nov 2003., 8(4), 267-283.

24.       Grahn, P. (1997). Ute på dagis: hur använder barn daghemsgården? : utformningen av daghemsgården och dess betydelse for lek, motorik och koncentrationsformåga [Out at kindergarten: How are the children using their outside environment in kindergarten? Kindergarten environments influence on children`s play, motor skills and concentration; in Swedish] (Vol. nr 145). Alnarp: Movium, sekretariatet for den yttre miljøn, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.

25.       Galluzzo, J. & Bar, L. (1999). The accessible school: Universal design for education setting. Berkeley, NY: Mig Communications.

26.       Gardner, D. E. (1981). Responsibility for cooperative planning. CEFPI’s EducationalFacility Planner, 19 (4), 7-10.

27.       Ghobadian V. (1996), Analyzing Iran’s traditional structures from a cliamtes perspective. Tehran :Tehranuniverdity press, 18 (3), 28-44.

28.       Hathaway, W. E. (1991). Schools for the 21st century: General specifications. CEFPI’s Educational Facility Planner, 29 (4), 25-30.

29.       Hines, E. (1996). Building condition and student achievement and behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57,11A.

30.       Kasmaee.M. (2003). Climate and architecture. Isfahan: Nashrekhak.

31.       Knirk, F. G. (1993). Facility requirements for integrated learning systems. CEFPI’sEducational Facility Planner, 31 (3), 13-18.

32.       Lanham, J. W. III. (1999). Relating building and classroom conditions to student achievement in Virginia’s elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60,07A.

33.       Mendez, J. L., Fantuzzo, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Profiles of social competence among low-income African American preschool children. Child Development, 73(4), 1085-1100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00459

34.       Ozdemir, A., & Yilmaz, O. (2008). Assessment of outdoor school environments and physical activity in Ankara's primary schools. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 287-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.004

35.       Russell, W. D., & Newton, M. (2008). Short-term psychological effects of interactive video game technology exercise on mood and attention. [Article]. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 294-308.

36.       Smith, L. L., & Motsenbocker, C. E. (2005). Impact of hands-on science through school gardening in Louisiana public elementary schools. [Article]. Horttechnology, 15(3), 439-443.

37.       Sydoriak, D. E. (1993). Designing schools for all kids. CEFPI’s Educational FacilityPlanner, 31 (5), 15-17.

38.       Taylor, A. &Gousie, G. (1988). The ecology of the learning environment for children.CEFPI’s Educational Facility Planner, 26 (4), 23-28.

---