The environmental setting has a direct impact on perception, comfort, motivation, and concentration in learning environments. Accordingly, in computer classrooms, technological equipment and classroom settings can enhance psychological comfort and the learning environment. With this in mind, seemingly subtle differences in interior design/layout, as opposed to the larger matters of architectural design and floor-plan, were assumed to influence the perceptual performance of design students. To verify this hypothesis, the atmospheric attributes of two computer classrooms used to teach 3Dmax and AutoCAD drawing programs at the Department of Furniture and Decoration of Technical Education Faculty at Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, were tested by eliciting responses to ten bipolar semantic differential items on a Likert-style scale. Results showed that differences in the environmental settings of each classroom had an important influence on the perceptual evaluations of students. Factors such as proximity/distance of pieces of equipment to one another, roominess/crowdedness in terms of the placement of the PC boxes, the presence of paintings and plants, and attention to circulation and sightlines, were observed to have an effect on whether student participants perceived a space positively or negatively. These results imply that preparing an optimal environment would encourage a good relationship between the student and his or her environment, thereby encouraging more productive learning and better motivation and concentration.
WaldenR: Schools for the Future: Design Proposals from Architectural Psychology. Germany, Hogrefe & Huber, 2009.
2.
FadamiroJAAkinbogunTL: Functional analysis of effective and affective space setting for industrial design programs in Nigerian higher institutions: Indoor Built Environ2009;18(6):562–568.
3.
GiffordR: Environmental numbness in the classroom: J Exp Educ1976;44(3): 4–7.
4.
LuppiciniR: Reflective Action Instructional Design (RAID): A designer's aid: Int J Technol Des Educ2003;13(1):75–82.
5.
AdamsLL: Designing the electronic classroom: in BarclayD (ed.): Teaching Electronic Information Literacy: A How-to-do-it Manual, New York, Neal-Schuman, 1995, pp. 147–162.
6.
AllenN: Designing an electronic writing classroom: IEEE Trans Prof Commun1996;39(4):232–238.
7.
LaeserKLMaxwellLEHedgeA: The effect of computer workstation design on student posture: J Res Comput Educ1998;31(2):173–188.
8.
ArlitschK: Building instruction labs at the university of Utah: Res Strategies1998;16(3):199–210.
9.
DouglasDGiffordR: Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: A lens example approach: Educ Res2001;43(3):295–309.
10.
KayaNBurgessB: The relationship between seating arrangement and student behaviour in college classrooms: Educ Facility Planner2006;40(2):11–15.
11.
HollbertKEKaradyGG: Strategies, challenges and prospects for active learning in the computer-based classroom: IEEE Trans Educ2009;52(1):31–38.
12.
EmmonsMWilkinsonFC: Designing the electronic classroom: Applying learning theory and ergonomic design principles: Library High Tech2001;19(1):77–87.
13.
RileyPCGalloLC: Electronic learning environments: Design considerations: T H E J2000;27(6):50–54.
14.
BarreroMHedgeA: Computer environments for children: A review of design issues: J Prev Assess Rehabil2002;18(3):227–237.
15.
PulgramWLRichardES: Designing the Automated Office. A Guide for Architects, Interior Designers, Space Planners and Facility Managers. New York, Watson-Guptill, 1984.
16.
WangHRussRR: Computer classroom wall colour preference and the relationship with personality type of college students: Colour: Des Creativity2008;2(4):1–13.
17.
King J, Marans RW: The physical environment and the learning process: A survey of recent research: Architectural Research Laboratory. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Survey Research, 1979 February. Report No. 320-ST2.
18.
LedfordBR: Interior design: Impact on learning achievement: in SleemanPJRockwellDM (eds): Designing Learning Environments, New York, Longman, 1981, pp. 160–173.
19.
Stuebing S, Celsi JG, Cousineau LK: Environments that support new modes of learning: The results of two interactive design workshops: Apple Computer Inc, 1994. Available at: http://images.apple.com/euro/pdfs/acotlibrary/rpt19.pdf (accessed May 17, 2011).
20.
ShneidermanBBorkowskyEYAlaviMNormanK: Emergent patterns of teaching/learning in electronic classrooms: Educ Technol Res Dev1998;46(4):23–42.
21.
OwuM: Classrooms for the 21st Century: Plann Higher Educ1992;20(3):12–20.
22.
CoppolaJThomasBA: A model for E-classroom design: Beyond “chalk and talk”: T H E J2000;27(6):30–36.
23.
BerlyneDE: Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. New York, Wiley, 1974.
24.
ImamogluV: Spaciousness of interiors: Dissertation, Glasgow, University of Strathclyde, 1975.
25.
FiedlerFE: The leadership game: matching the man to the situation: in GibsonJWHodgettsRM (eds): Readings and Exercises in Organizational Communication, Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 122–130.
26.
JayasingheMGMorrisonGRRossSM: The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions: Educ Technol Res Dev1997;45(4):5–19.
27.
GreenR: Meaning and form in community perception of town character: J Environ Psychol1999;19(4):311–329.
28.
ImamogluC: Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades: J Environ Psychol2000;20(1):5–16.
29.
KayaNWeberMJ: Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish Students: J Environ Psychol2003;23(3):301–309.
30.
YildirimKAkalin-BaskayaAHidayetogluML: Effects of indoor color on mood and cognitive performance: Build Environ2007;42(9):3233–3240.
31.
YildirimKAkalin-BaskayaA: Perceived crowding in a café-restaurant with different seating densities: Build Environ2007;42(9):3410–3417.
32.
YildirimKAkalinACagatayK: Otel yatak odalarinin ic mekan tasariminin kullanicilarin algi-davranissal performansi uzerine etkisi (Effects of interior design of hotel rooms on perceptual and behavioral performance of its’ users): Politeknik Dergisi (Polytechnic J)2008;11(2):175–185.
33.
MiwaYHanyuK: The classification of counseling-rooms based on the components of interior: in HechtP (ed): Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Environmental and Design Research Association, Vol. 33, Edmond, OK, EDRA, 2002, p. 108.
34.
BakerJ: The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer perspective: in CzepielJACongramCAShanahanJ (eds): The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, Chicago, American Marketing Association, 1986, pp. 79–84.
35.
WakefieldKLBakerJ: Excitement at the mall: Determinants and effects on shopping response: J Retail1998;74(4):515–539.
36.
BagozziRPYiY: On the evaluation of structural equation examples: J Acad Market Sci1988;16(1):74–94.
37.
McKinleyRKManku-ScottTHastingsAMFrenchDPBakerR: Reliability and validity of a new measure of patient satisfaction with out of hours primary medical care in the United Kingdom: Development of a patient questionnaire: BMJ1997;314(7075):193–198.
38.
BosmaHMarmotMGHemingwayHNicholsonACBrunnerEStansfieldSA: Low job control and risk of coronary heart disease in whitehall II (prospective cohort) study: BMJ1997;314(7080):558–565.
39.
GrewalDKrishnanRBakerJBorinN: The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions: J Retail1998;74(3):331–352.
40.
KimJOJinB: Korean customers’ patronage of discount stores: Domestic vs. Multinational discount store shoppers’ profiles: J Consum Market2001;18(3):236–255.
41.
PektasSTErkipF: Attitudes of design students toward computer usage in design: Int J Technol Des Educ2006;16(1):79–95.
42.
McCreary F, Reaux R, Ehrich R, Hood S, Rowland K: Designing successful technology-rich elementary schools: in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, October 5–9, 1998, Available at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-02/HFaE-DSTE-010299.php (accessed May 17, 2011).
