School as 3 d textbook for environmental education
Transcript of School as 3 d textbook for environmental education
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education: DesignModel Transforming Physical Environment to KnowledgeTransmission Instrument
Seng Yeap Kong • Sreenivasaiah Purushothama Rao •
Hamzah Abdul-Rahman • Chen Wang
� De La Salle University 2013
Abstract Although the notion of Three-Dimensional (3-D)
Textbook promises a lot of potential benefits to the teaching
and learning in environmental education (EE), research on
this subject is relatively scarce in the literature. There is
limited information on how to transform physical settings
into pedagogical tools for EE. In this article, the authors
address this need by developing a design model for 3-D
Textbook based on a qualitative case analysis conducted in
Green School, Bali. Data were collected through a series of
interview and on-site observation. These qualitative findings
contribute to the development of themes and a design model
that can be adopted by practitioners and future researchers in
this direction. Additionally, this research brings to the
practitioners’ attention, the issues and criteria that need to be
addressed in designing 3-D Textbook. Thus, this study is a
significant attempt to reunite architecture and EE with a
potential contribution to a field of knowledge that embraces
design and science education. Designers and environmental
educators interested in tapping the potential of physical
environment as an instrument for knowledge transmission in
schools will find this article useful.
Keywords Elementary school �Environmental education � Green school �3-D textbook � Bali Island
Introduction
Graham (2003) noted that ‘‘there is no better place to teach
the children…about how to live sustainably with the earth
and to repair the damage done, than at their school’’ (p. 253).
Furthermore, existing research (Zhu 2012; Walden 2009)
indicates that only when children come into early intensive
contact with nature, will they become actively engaged in the
protection and conservation of natural life and resources later
on. As a result, environmental education (EE) has been
entrusted with the responsibility to promote new forms of
thinking and behavior patterns among the children in pri-
mary schools. EE is so important that it is now guiding the
planning of new schools both from an educational as well as
the architectural point of view.
With the increased recognition that EE should find a
special consideration in educational facilities design, a
small, growing literature about the subject is emerging.
Practitioners and scholars attempt to bond architecture and
EE by designing physical environment as a Three-Dimen-
sional (3-D) Textbook (Orr 1993; Taylor and Enggass 2009),
thus transforming the school into an ecological learning hub
for children (Rauch 2000). Treating the physical environ-
ment as a teaching tool enables the topics such as ‘‘rainwater
harvesting,’’ ‘‘renewable energy,’’ ‘‘ecosystem,’’ and the like
to be conveyed through direct experience (Duerden and Witt
2010). More importantly, children are not studying static
knowledge under contrived conditions; instead they are part
of an interactive learning environment which serves as an
instrument for pedagogy (Hung et al. 2012; Malone and
Tranter 2003).
S. Y. Kong � S. P. Rao
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
C. Wang (&)
Centre for Building Innovation and Facility Management,
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Abdul-Rahman
Vice-Chancellor’s Office, International University
of Malaya-Wales (IUMW), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
123
Asia-Pacific Edu Res
DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0064-2
However, there is much to be done to further open up the
road from theory toward practice. Although the notion of 3-D
Textbook promises a lot of potential benefits to the teaching
and learning of EE (Higgs and McMillan 2006), research on
this subject is relatively scarce in the literature. To date, no
attempt has been made to explore children’s responses and
perceptions toward this emerging trend in school design.
Thus, what attributes characterize a 3-D Textbook from the
children’s point of view remained unclear. More impor-
tantly, practitioners have struggled to formulate or invent an
effective design model for 3-D Textbook, due to the limited
feedbacks from the users. In this article, we address the
above-mentioned shortcomings by conducting a qualitative
case analysis which describes and interprets 3-D Textbook
from the children’s perspective. Looking into the minds of
the children enables the designers and environmental edu-
cators to better comprehend what children find interesting
and meaningful about their school environment. We attempt
to utilize the children’s perceptions as a basis to develop a
design model that could be adopted by practitioners and
future researchers in this direction.
A Review on 3-D Textbook
Orr’s (1993, 1997) thought-provoking theory—‘‘Architec-
ture as Pedagogy’’ highlighted that buildings and landscape
carry pedagogical value and these are power tools that
influence the act of teaching and learning. Orr (1997)
suggests that the EE can be embedded into the built envi-
ronment and thus every building tells a story. He empha-
sizes that the physical environment and EE are not two
separate identities. In fact, school architecture can be a
kind of crystallized pedagogy. Thus Orr concluded that
buildings have their own hidden curriculum that teaches as
effectively as any course taught in them (1997).
On the other hand, Taylor (Taylor 1993; Taylor and
Enggass 2009) has been working together with her col-
leagues for the past 40 years translating philosophy and
curriculum to architectural program and subsequently to an
actual physical design. Her writings resonate with Orr’s
recommendation that buildings and landscape can be used
to reflect what we are teaching children through textbooks
(Taylor 1993). Taylor documented that physical environ-
ment gives us many messages if we are ready and willing
to read them. In other words, the elements in built envi-
ronment and nature possess symbolic messages that are
worthy of further exploration. Educators, can, if they are
aware of the opportunities offered by the designed or nat-
ural world, turn ‘‘objects’’ into ‘‘thoughts’’ for children
(Taylor and Enggass 2009). Thus, Taylor (1993) concluded
that when school serves as a 3-D Textbook, the EE cur-
riculum is the school environment and vice versa.
From an educational point of view, the notion of 3-D
Textbook promotes teaching and learning through the act of
modeling (Higgs and McMillan 2006). In other words, EE
concept and idea can be rendered into architectural forms as
tangible models that the children can see, touch, and expe-
rience (Baines 2008; Orr 1997). Pintrich and Schunk (2002)
noted that learning from a role model involves attention and
observation, followed by the retention and translation of
modeled actions into personal behavior. Their statement is
supported by Higgs and McMillan (2006) who concluded
that school settings can be valuable role models to foster
learning about sustainability and the adoption of sustainable
behavior. In addition, a 3-D Textbook also set the stage for
experiential learning (Kolb 1984; Silberman 2007). It pro-
motes the construct of new knowledge and skill through
active interaction with the surrounding environment (Joyce
et al. 2009). Buildings and landscape provide numerous
opportunities for hands-on and practical activity (Aho et al.
1993; Gott and Duggan 1996; Griffin 1998). Thus, Lim and
Mun-Desalle (2010) noted that school environment is an
ideal site for the practice of ‘‘learning by doing.’’
On the other hand, Orr (1993, 1997) noted that utilizing
academic buildings as 3-D Textbooks promises a number of
benefits in the process of design, construction, and operation.
Orr (1993) highlighted that the design of school is an
opportunity to further explore the relationship between
ecology and economics. He also noted that the issue of ethics
is engage in any decision making process. For example, what
ecological and human costs do various materials impose?
Additionally, Orr documented that there is a curriculum in
applied ecology within the built environment. Thus, he rec-
ommended that buildings can be designed to recycle waste
through miniature ecosystem which will be studied and
maintained by the children. Finally, Orr proposed that school
buildings can extend ecological competence by inviting the
participation of children. Thus, new knowledge and skills are
constructed through the children’s involvement in the
maintenance and operation of the school.
However, there is much to be done to further open up
the road from theory toward practice (Goh et al. 2012).
Although the notion of 3-D Textbook promises a lot of
potential benefits to the teaching and learning of EE (Higgs
and McMillan 2006), research on this subject is relatively
scarce in the literature. To date, there has been no systemic
effort to explore children’s responses and perceptions
toward this emerging trend in school design. Thus, what
attributes characterize a 3-D Textbook from the children’s
point of view remained unclear. More importantly, practi-
tioners are unable to formulate or invent an effective design
model for 3-D Textbook, due to the limited feedbacks from
the users (Deasy 1974). There is inadequate guidance on
how to transform physical settings into pedagogical tools
for EE.
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
In this article, the authors address the above-mentioned
shortcomings by conducting a qualitative case analysis
which describes and interprets 3-D Textbook from the
children’s perspective. Looking into the minds of the
children enables the designers and environmental educators
to better comprehend what children find interesting and
meaningful about their school environment. It concurs with
Deasy’s suggestion (1974) that design solutions should be
understood by studying the reactions of the users rather
than concentrating on the intentions of the designers.
Furthermore, the authors attempt to utilize the case study as
a basis to develop a design model that could be adopted by
practitioners and future researchers in this direction.
Case Selection and Description
In the beginning of this study, we identified the possible
choice of case study through review of literature on school
design, analysis of visual and audio materials in a library,
word-of mouth (i.e., asking the opinion of colleagues, EE
experts, and design practitioners) and internet search using
keywords like sustainable learning environment, ecological
school, green educational facilities, etc. Subsequently, we
contacted the sort-listed schools via email or informal phone
interviews to gain a better understanding on the school
design in relation to EE. After a series of reviews and dis-
cussions, we identified Green School in Bali, Indonesia as the
ideal case study due to its exceptional approach in greening
its campus. Unlike the conventional schools that merely
make a few token gestures toward sustainability, Green
School, Bali is designed from the ground up as an excellent
illustration of the term ‘‘3-D Textbook for EE.’’
Green School, nestled deep in the tropical rainforest, was
an international school that echoed confounder John and
Cynthia Hardy’s vision in creating future sustainable com-
munity. Green School had attracted both local and interna-
tional attentions, including press coverage by CNN, BBC,
CNBC, etc. Catering to students from nursery to secondary
school, Green School blended the Cambridge International
Curriculum with green studies and creative arts. Currently,
there are more than 200 children from 40 countries enrolled
in the school. 20 percent of this cohort consisted of the local
Balinese kids with their school fees being sponsored by
scholarships.
Green School offered an unprecedented learning envi-
ronment that attempted to bind the two disciplines of archi-
tecture and EE together. Additionally, the school signified a
total departure from the industrial-like educational facilities.
In order to fulfill the school’s vision to inspire and lead the
world of education and sustainability (Green School, 2011),
the school as a whole was designed as a live example of
sustainable living. The buildings in Green School were
constructed out of bamboo, alang–alang grass, mud, and
other local resources as presented in Fig. 1. The use of
chemicals, toxic, or on-sustainable resources was avoided to
minimize pollution and energy expenditure in the produc-
tion. In contrary, bamboo was widely adopted in the process
of design and construction due to its attributes as a low-
impact and rapidly renewable material.
The classrooms in Green School had no walls, allowing for
natural ventilation to take place along with the ceiling fans.
Additionally, the open classroom promoted a closer rela-
tionship between children and the nature. It encouraged the
use of the surrounding environment as an interactive teaching
material by integrating sight and sound of nature into the
learning spaces. In addition, the school grounds were utilized
as organic planting plots for the children to grow, harvest and
finally consume their own vegetables and fruits. The sus-
tainable elements include a 9-m water vortex power plant, a
biogas reactor which supplied methane from decomposition
of cow manure as shown in Fig. 2, compost toilets, etc. were a
part and parcel of the EE syllabus. Furthermore, the school
was planning to be completely off the grid in the near future by
installing solar panels along with the generation of hydro-
electric by the water vortex in the adjacent river.
In a nut shell, Green School symbolized a first of its kind
learning facility that presented a valuable case study in 3-D
Textbook. It strived to minimize its carbon footprint via the
experimental and innovative architecture. More impor-
tantly, the school fully utilized its physical environment
(i.e., buildings and landscape) as a pedagogy tool to
transmit the message of sustainability directly to the users.
It would be worthwhile to explore the children’s responses
and perceptions toward this unique environment.
Research Approach and Procedures
We began our study by drafting a research protocol for approval
by the Green School administration. We made explicit that we
would not disturb the daily routine and learning activities of the
children. We also limited our study to the responses of children
in primary years, with a focus on fifth graders, rather than
expand it to include students in secondary years. We also
bounded the study by time (2 weeks) and by a single case
(Green School, Bali). This bounding of the study was consistent
with an exploratory qualitative case study design (Creswell
2007), which was chosen because models and variables were
not available for investigating children’s responses to 3-D
Textbook in a school setting.
Fifth graders were identified as the appropriate partici-
pants for three main reasons. First, they were considered to
be familiar with the school routine and have developed an
understanding of their role as students. Second, they were
considered to be neurologically mature and should have
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123
established functional levels of literacy and other basic
academic and learning skills by that stage of their academic
careers (Tempest 1987). Third, as the highest grade in the
primary school, the fifth graders were considered as
‘‘information-rich’’ due to the fact that they had experi-
enced the learning environments for years and had under-
gone most of the EE syllabus (Tanner 2000).
We adopted two techniques for data collection, namely
on-site observation and interview. All children in primary
years were included in the on-site observation while the in-
depth interviews were only conducted with the selected
fifth graders. Additionally, discussions and brief interviews
were carried out with the selected teachers, administration
staffs, and the project architect of Green School, Bali as
multiple sources of data to support and clarify the infor-
mation gathered from the children.
On-site Observation
On-site observations were designed to record particular
things such as how children use the school ground, how they
respond to different environmental stimuli and so on
(Fredrickson and Anderson 1999). Additionally, the on-site
observations were also adopted to build a level of thrust with
the children in order to promote the open sharing of infor-
mation and honest response during their interview session
(Fredrickson and Anderson 1999). The observations were
carried out before the school started, during recess, and after
the school had finished for a period of 2 weeks. The PI
conducted stationary observations in the outdoor spaces
where there was a wider field of vision; while non-stationary
observations were conducted for indoor spaces, which did
not provide good visibility (Kasal and Dogan 2010). In
addition, the PI spent a considerable amount of time with the
fifth graders as a passive observer during their formal les-
sons. The PI took an extensive number of field notes, sket-
ches, and photos to record spatial information and children’s
activities. This collected data served as a point of reference
for in-depth interviews and data analysis.
Children’s Interview
A general interview guide was developed using Malone’s
and Tranter’s (2003) methodology as a reference. Prior to the
Fig. 1 School buildings
constructed with local resources
Fig. 2 Water vortex power
plant (left) and biogas reactor
using cow manure
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
interview, twenty-three fifth graders were asked to draw two
pictures illustrating their perceptions of Green School and
how they would like their school to be changed as shown in
Fig. 3. Instructions were kept very simple and general so that
each child could express their thoughts and feelings freely
through their drawings. Subsequently, the children for in-
depth interview were selected according to maximum vari-
ation sampling (Creswell 2007), where three-fifth graders
consisting of Good, Average, and Weak according to aca-
demic achievement were interviewed each day. Typically,
interviews were 25–35 min, conducted face to face, and
audio recorded. A total of twelve fifth graders were inter-
viewed before the saturation of data occurred, where we
arrived at the point when we were not finding anything new.
We created open-ended interview questions to encour-
age children to express at length their experience as users
and occupants of Green School. Whenever required, we
would ask follow-up questions to construct a clearer
understanding on the topic discussed.
Data Interpretation
All interview data underwent transcription where audio
information was turned into written text and stored in a
computer database (Creswell 2008). Verbatim transcription
was done manually without using software. Subsequent to
data transcription, data coding was adopted. All the texts
were categorized into groups of sentences (coded excerpts)
to make it easier to determine the meaning for each seg-
ment. These coded excerpts were then organized into
themes. The children’s drawing, photo, sketches, and field
notes were used as indicators of consistency throughout the
process of analysis. In addition, these indicators provided
potential insights that might not have been vocalized by the
combined interviews (James and Bixler 2008).
The text analysis gave rise to a narrative structure that
described the children’s perceptions about their school
environment and stated our interpretations of the child-place
interaction by incorporating edited quotes from the
informants. We verified these description and interpretation
by conducting peer review with interested colleagues and
experts including architects and EE practitioners. These
reviewers examined our coding and data analysis during the
‘‘peer debriefing sessions’’ to confirm emerging themes and
findings. Additionally, we employed external audit by hav-
ing an associate professor from faculty of education to
review our research procedure and product periodically.
Furthermore, we established the reliability of the coding by
keeping a code book and used multiple coders to analyst
transcript data (Creswell 2007, pp. 209–211).
Result and Discussion
Themes by coding are categories that best described the
attributes that characterize a 3-D Textbook from the chil-
dren’s point of view. T1a-Furnashing, T1b-Interior Fin-
ishes, and T1c-Building Materials are coded under T1-
Exposed Materials. T2a-Photovoltaic, T2b-Rainwater
Harvesting, T2c-Mechanical/Electrical System are under
T2-Exposed Technologies/Services. T3a-Water Filtration
in Wetland, T3b-Flow of Storm Water, and T3c-Restora-
tion of Native Vegetation are under T3- Exposed Ecolog-
ical Processes. T1, T2, and T3 are coded under
(T) transparency. Likewise, N1-Indoor-Outdoor Relation-
ship (including N1a- Large Opening/Window and N1b-
Access to Greenery), N2-Outdoor Learning Spaces
(including N2a- Class under a Tree and N2b-Garden), and
N3-Site Specific Features (including N3a-Contour, N3b-
Rainforest, and N3C-Riverare) are coded under (N) in one
with nature. C1-Artistic and Inventive Building (including
C1a-Color, C1b-Form Making, and C1c-Texture and Pat-
tern), C2-Reuse of Salvaged Products (including C2a-
Second-Hand Door and Window and C2b-Reclaimed
Bricks), and C3-Spaces for Experimentation (including
C3a-Workshop and C3b-Studio) are coded under (C) crea-
tivity and imagination. Finally, A1-Open-Ended Spaces
(including A1a- Multipurpose Hall and A1b-Internal
Courtyard), A2-Operation Maintenance (including A2a-
Fig. 3 Drawing of pictures as
part of the interview protocol
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123
Edible Schoolyard and A2b-Energy Monitoring System),
and A3-Project-Based Activity (including A3a-Rabbit/Fish
Farm, A3b-Tree House) are coded under (A) active learn-
ing. Therefore, the four themes that emerged from this
study were: (T) transparency, (N) in one with nature,
(C) creativity, and imagination, (A) active learning.
Transparency
The first theme was termed as transparency because the
exposed building materials, services, and systems in Green
School served as 3-D Textbooks to model high perfor-
mance and sustainability to the students. Green features
were integrated into the planning and design of the school
environment to minimize the school’s carbon footprint and
contributed toward the vision of being energy independent.
However, the biggest asset of having these features in place
was the fact that they carried pedagogical value. Field
notes revealed that the green features were not concealed or
hidden from view, as described by a student, ‘‘what you see
is what you get here…’’ Thus, it is a part and parcel of the
design intention to unmask the processes in built and the
natural environment so that these systems were more vis-
ible and accessible to the students.
Field notes and interviews documented that students
were exposed to various green technologies as part of their
EE learning. For example, students studied about the water
vortex power plant (Fig. 2) because it was part of the
school’s efforts to generate clean and renewable energy.
Moreover, by making the vortex generator accessible to the
students, it offered enormous opportunity for direct expe-
rience (Duerden and Witt 2010) to take place. Furthermore,
as the daily lessons advocated on the sustainable living, the
buildings in Green School mirrored the same feature by
using and exposing bamboo as a rapidly renewable
resource. During interviews, one student stated, ‘‘we used
bamboo [for construction] and bamboo is really easy to
grow and much faster than trees. It takes, I think, 2–3 years
[for it] to grow to its full height. It takes in a lot of carbon
dioxide and let out a lot of oxygen.’’
In addition, the exposed systems provided the necessary
scaffolding for students to acquire mastery over the abstract EE
concept. It helped to move the act of teaching and learning away
from the abstract representation. As noted by a student, ‘‘Here
[in Green School], you can explain it [EE] better. Because you
know ‘bamboo’ in our school is this [school building]. And this
is how it helps and you will be like: OK, this is what I got to
do…’’ Apparently, buildings in Green School had been trans-
formed into a powerful teaching tool by making the various
sustainable elements visible to the students. It invariably pro-
voked deeper thoughts among the building occupants. More
importantly, it rendered a positive impact on the students’
environmental commitments in the long term. This was
reflected in the in-depth interview where the students showed
their inclination toward future houses with ecological sub-
stance. When asked how her future house would be like, a
student answered, ‘‘I probably will want to have my house out
of bamboo or some kind of natural resource[s]…And I might
want compost toilet.’’ The interviewer was amazed and
responded, ‘‘Compost toilet?’’ The student answered confi-
dently. The conversation continued as follows:
Interviewer: That is interesting. Because some people
still cannot accept compost toilet. Can you?
Student: I mean I can have it, but I also like other toilet
[flush toilet]…Both the same. It doesn’t really matter to
me what type of toilet I use. And then I will also make
my sinks out of stone.
Interviewer: What [kind of] stone?
Student: I don’t know what kind of stone it is, but in
Green School they have stone for sink.
Interviewer: Oh. I see. Any other things that you want to
have?
Student: I will most probably want to have some animals
and garden also.
In One with Nature
The subsequent theme was in one with nature which
described the design of Green School that integrated the
surrounding environment as part of the educational spaces.
It disclosed that the nature played a critical role as a 3-D
Textbook to support and inspire students’ learning. This
was well-explained by a teacher:
Interviewer:…just now I heard one of the students talked
about making the roof [of the school’s chicken coop] out
of water repelling materials [by studying the water lily
leaves in their school pond]. As fifth grader, they already
have this kind of ability to connect things with
nature…Do you teach them about ‘‘biomimicry’’?
Teacher:…it is amazing to have a fifth grader thinking at
that level. And to have that happen in class is not
uncommon. There are kids who get so inspired by the
nature…Mind is expending and thinking of all the
possibility. So instead of closing their minds, and
teaching how they should be, it feels really here that
we are opening their minds to expanding the possibility.
That’s why I love to be here.
In addition, school grounds and gardens in Green School
were fully utilized as outdoor learning spaces that con-
tributed significantly to the teaching and learning about
‘‘place.’’ Field notes documented that the site features like
contour, rainforest, river, etc. were incorporated as a
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
significant component of EE. Thus, flora and fauna were
always close-at-hands, inviting students for further explo-
ration and discovery. When asked about the important or
interesting places in Green School, a student responded:
‘‘Well, definitely all the outside places…One of the things
represent Green School is that there isn’t any enclosed
place…Because pretty much you feel like you are always
outside. And then when you are outside, it feels really
good.’’ Furthermore, field notes indicated that students
enjoyed spending time in the outdoor spaces and preferred
open classroom with no walls as shown in Fig. 4.
It reunited the outdoor and indoor spaces and it had the
benefit of capturing the prevailing breezes and view of
greenery. We noted that the nature was successfully weaved
back into the students’ daily learning. The students express a
great attention in the nature, especially the gardens next to
their classroom. In a nut shell, the school buildings worked in
partnership with nature to promote a continuous dialog
between the students and their surrounding environment.
The sensory input from the nature constantly inspired and
motivated the students in their environmental learning.
Moreover, by being ‘‘in one with nature,’’ students were once
again connected to the local climate. Field notes documented
that students were sensitive to the climatic conditions and
constantly expressed their attention to the rhythms of natural
cycles throughout the interviews. We noted that the open
classrooms made them conscious of the order of sun, wind,
and rain in the nature. They were also aware of how these
natural forces supported them and how they were related to
the larger ecosystem.
Creativity and Imagination
Interviews and observational data documented that chil-
dren regarded the school as a source of creativity and
imagination. The school buildings were artistically
assembled with natural resources. They served as 3-D
Textbooks that unfolded students’ imagination and pro-
voked creative solutions for environmental problems. A
student indicated, ‘‘…the whole school is about creativity
and imagination, 99 percent of that. Someone have to have
creativity and imagination to build the school. And it kinds
of rub off on you too.’’ Additionally, the buildings in Green
School represented innovation in educational architecture,
especially in the form making of buildings. Moreover, field
notes recorded that reclaimed materials had been creatively
reused in Green School. The roof of the new kitchen was
made from flattened metal barrel while the cars’ windsc-
reens, side and rear windows had been reused as ‘‘white
board’’ in classrooms as shown in Fig. 5.
Interviews further disclosed that students were amazed
with the designer’s ‘‘out of the box’’ approach in reusing
waste products. As a result, students demonstrated their
ability and interest in finding new uses for discarded items
through their artworks. Field notes recorded that students
constructed models from household wastes like bottles,
aluminum cans, and cardboard packaging as presented in
Fig. 6.
Furthermore, during the interview, one of the students
suggested to reuse an abandoned water tank for recrea-
tional and educational purposes as presented in Fig. 7. The
discussion was as follows:
Interviewer: Tell me about this water tank. We discussed
about it yesterday when you were drawing it.
Student: Well. That…Hmm…This Green School is
about making things not buying new things. Ya…I
think it will be good if they make a ‘‘party’’ out of the
water tank. And cut hole in it so it is like a door. But,
ya…So it doesn’t have water in it.
Interviewer: We talked about this yesterday and you
[mentioned that students] can go in and study inside,
right?
Student: Ya!
In addition, field notes and interviews documented that
the students were overwhelmed with the innovations in the
built environment which served as living illustration of
inventive and sustainable solutions. They were highly
motivated to test new experimentations or examine original
ideas. As a result, they acknowledged the importance of
creativity and imagination in environmental learning.
When asked what he wanted to tell other children that
might not have the opportunity to study in Green School, a
student responded, ‘‘Be creative. And let your imagination
out. And help your future. Learn a lot and since you are a
kid, you can play a lot…’’
In a nut shell, buildings in Green School are regarded as
creative art work that enfolds students with ecological
Fig. 4 Open classroom with no walls
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123
imagination and critical thinking. Buildings in the campus
were acknowledged as being functional as well as inspir-
ing. These buildings stood proud as a form of pedagogical
tool that motivated students to constantly challenge the
conventional standard in hope of generating superior and
novel resolutions. It aimed to equip students with problem-
solving capability leading to environmental innovation. It
promotes ‘‘a more ecology-centred way of understanding
creativity’’ (Bowers 1995, p. 42) and it unlocks students
imagination using physical setting in a school.
Active Learning
Additionally, our observation indicated that students were
given the responsibility in the operation and maintenance
of the school ground and facilities. This included taking
care of the farming plots and building small scale bamboo
projects in the school compound. It became apparent that
students were not merely passive observers. Instead, they
were actively interacting with the natural and built envi-
ronment in their learning process. This suggested the final
theme—active learning, where it described the use of
physical settings as 3-D Textbooks to promote the notion
of ‘‘learning by doing.’’ For instance, organic farming plots
were allocated for students to grow food and vegetables as
shown in Fig. 8. It encouraged the students to develop new
Fig. 5 Kitchen’s new roof (left)and ‘‘white board’’ in classroom
(right)
Fig. 6 Examples of students’
art works from household
wastes
Fig. 7 Student’s drawing illustrating a reclaimed water tank
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
knowledge, skills, and environmental awareness through
hands-on experience. This was well illustrated by the fol-
lowing conversation:
Interviewer: Yesterday when I followed your Green
Studies class, I noticed that you all really get your hands
dirty and do things by yourself [in the farming
plot]…Not everyone has the opportunity to grow their
own vegetables and fruit [in the school]…Share with me
how you feel about this.
Student:…You (have to) go through all these trou-
bles…at the beginning of the year, you can’t [plant
anything]. Because there is left over from last
year…There are weeds all over the place and the beds
are collapsed. The first thing you have to do is to make it
‘‘proper’’…and ‘‘growable’’ so that you can grow things
on it. You have to clean everything; you have to make
the soil aerated. And then you put all the seeds in. And
you have to water every single day. And then at the very
end, everybody can go in there after a quite long time.
And everybody knows how much works that they all put
in. And then you get to eat it. And you feel really proud
of yourself because you actually did it all by yourself…Interviewer: From your description and my observation
yesterday, I think you have (acquired) the skill of
gardening now. Do you agree?
Student: Ya!
Additionally, interviews revealed that the students uti-
lized the information-rich environment to acquire new
understanding either by individual exploration or with the
support of others. For example, field notes indicated that
the school grounds were utilized as farming space for
group learning. The same settings could also support self-
discovery by allowing individual student to explore dif-
ferent species of fruits and vegetables during their free
time. Furthermore, field notes documented that the space in
Green School was treated as a living laboratory for students
to practice construction, preservation, or conservation. The
students and teachers were given the freedom and oppor-
tunity to alter the physical settings via the project-based
activities. For instance, the fifth graders were responsible
for the demolition, design, and rebuild of a chicken coop
for the school. We documented that the students were
dynamically engaged in these processes and directly
responsible for the success and outcomes.
In a nut shell, the design of the buildings and landscape
in Green School was open-ended where the students and
teachers were allowed to transform them in a variety of
ways. In other words, the space was designed to be multi-
purpose and more importantly it could be adapted to dif-
ferent environmental learning activities. Unlike the con-
ventional schools that were dominated by classroom-based
lecture, Green School was well equipped with facilities and
infrastructures that promoted active learning in and out of
the classrooms.
Implication for Practice
Our qualitative findings represent detailed design activities
and examples for 3-D Textbook as illustrated in Table 1,
which are inspired by the children perceptions about their
environment. A design model transforming school as 3-D
textbooks for environmental education was developed in
Fig. 9. This model should not be confused with the form
giving activity in conventional design approach, although it
would include the elements of functionality and efficiency.
Here we are proposing that school design should take into
account the four emerged themes as a starting point to build
innovative learning spaces that could serve as 3-D Text-
books. Consequently, this study offers a few practical
implications for school designers and environmental
educators.
If hiding the ecological process and services that go
around in a building is the one side of a coin, making these
process and technology visible is the other (OWP/P
Architects Inc et al. 2010; Van der Ryn and Cowan 1996).
The theme of transparency suggests that building services
and technology ought to be illustrated and celebrated as a
model of sustainability to the children. Environmental
educators can capitalize on these transparent infrastructures
to educate children about the mechanism of the real world.
A plan to integrate EE into the design, construction, and
operation of a school should be in place, accompanied by
training for environmental educators on how to utilize
these exposed systems and processes as 3-D Textbook.
Taken a step further, school designers should work closely
with the environmental educators in the initial design stage
so that the resulting buildings and landscape could meet the
Fig. 8 Students’ organic farming plots adjacent to their classroom
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123
Table 1 Design model for School as 3-D Textbook for environmental education
Theme Purpose Design Feature Short description Example in Green School, Bali
Transparency To model high
performance and
sustainability to the
students
Exposed
Materials
Building materials,
finishes, and furnishing
that reflect
sustainability and EE
The buildings in Green
School mirrored
sustainable living by
using and revealing
bamboo as a rapidly
renewable resource
To unmask the
processes in built and
the natural
environment so that
these systems are
more visible and
accessible to the
students
Exposed
Technologies
and Services
Integrating green
technologies and
building services (i.e.,
photovoltaic, rainwater
harvesting, composting
toilet, etc.) into EE
Students studied about
the water vortex power
plant because it was
part of the school’s
efforts to generate clean
and renewable energy
To provide the
necessary scaffolding
for students to acquire
mastery over the
abstract EE concept
Exposed
Ecological
Processes
Revealing the processes
and systems in nature
(i.e., native vegetation
restoration, waste water
filtration in wetland,
flow of storm water,
etc.) as an opportunity
for EE
Green School utilized a
pond in the campus as
an ecological site for
students to explore
aquatic ecosystems
In One with
Nature
To integrate the
surrounding
environment as part
of the educational
spaces
Indoor-Outdoor
Relationship
Promote the indoor-
outdoor connectivity by
providing large
openings, windows, or
accesses to the adjacent
greeneries
The open classroom in
Green School reunited
the outdoor and indoor
spaces. It had the
advantage of capturing
the prevailing breezes
and view of the
greenery
To reconnect students
back to the ecosystem
and natural cycles
Outdoor
Learning
Spaces
Open or outdoor areas
(garden, trees,
courtyard, etc.) with
access to flora and
fauna
Various lessons and
activities during Green
Studies were conducted
outdoor in the garden,
farming plot, or
bamboo nursery
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
Table 1 continued
Theme Purpose Design Feature Short description Example in Green School, Bali
To make children
aware of the local
climatic conditions
(the order of sun,
wind, and rain)
Site Specific
Features
Including specific site
features (contour,
rainforest, river, etc.) as
an opportunity to learn
about ‘‘place’’
The river adjacent to the
campus was
incorporated as a
significant component
of EE in Green School.
Students were allowed
to explore the river
valley under the
supervision of their
teachers
Creativity
and
Imagination
To enfold students
with ecological
imagination and
critical thinking
Artistic and
Inventive
Buildings
Buildings that
demonstrate inventions
(form making, color,
texture, pattern, etc.)
and serve as a source of
inspiration for the
students
The school buildings
were artistically
assembled with natural
resources. The
buildings’ form was
inspired by the nature.
For example, the
kindergarten looked
like a whale and the
Heart Of the School
was an orange peel
To equip students
with problem-
solving capability
leading to
environmental
innovation
Reuse of
Salvaged
Products
Reuse or repurpose
salvaged products
(second-hand door/
window, reclaimed
bricks, bottles,
aluminum cans, etc.)
creatively in built
environment and
landscape
The roof of the new
kitchen was made from
flattened metal barrel
To encourage the
generation of
superior and novel
resolutions by
conducting
experimentations
and testing of new
ideas
Spaces for
Experimentation
Specialize areas (studio,
workshop, etc.) with or
without needed
equipment to support
the testing of new ideas
during formal lessons
(Science, Ecology, Art,
etc.)
An art studio was
allocated for students to
perform various
experimentations with
waste products
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123
educational goals better (Lim and Mun-Desalle 2010).
Incorporating EE into the design brief and having the
environmental educators to review the design progress can
provide opportunities for interaction and collaboration
between the design team and EE communities.
The theme of in one with nature is not surprising based
on the conviction that children should not be detached from
the nature (Goh et al. 2012). Our findings reinforce a
growing literature that argues that EE should focus on not
only classroom-based lecture but also interaction with
nature. Given the preference toward the natural cycles and
ecology in the children’s dialog, designers and environ-
mental educators should seek to integrate the surrounding
environment as a pedagogical tool to support and enhance
EE. School designers should provide large openings or see-
through glass wall in classrooms to promote the indoor-
outdoor relationship. Environmental educators, on the
other hand, must be able to take some of the indoor
learning to an outdoor area where the nature is close at
hand. For instance, conducting a class about photosynthesis
under a tree or extending the lessons on flora and fauna into
the adjacent gardens. Additionally, environmental educa-
tors should be sensitive to the various site features (i.e.,
contours, wetland, etc.) in the school, keeping in mind that
these existing ecosystems can serve as high quality learn-
ing spaces for the children.
The theme of creativity and imagination has been rarely
discussed in the EE literature. However, scholars (Bowers
1995; Orr 1997) claim that creative learning environment
Table 1 continued
Theme Purpose Design Feature Short description Example in Green School, Bali
Active
Learning
To encourage active
interaction with the
natural and built
environment
throughout the
learning process
Open-Ended
Spaces
Multipurpose areas that
allow students and
teachers to transform
them in a variety of
ways to support
different activities
within the same space
The school grounds are
utilized as farming
space for group
learning. The same
settings can also
support self-discovery
by allowing individual
student to explore
different species of
fruits and vegetables
during their free time
To promote the
notion of ‘‘learning
by doing’’
Operation and
Maintenance
School ground and
facilities that invite
students’ participation
in its operation and
maintenance (edible
schoolyard, energy
monitoring system,
refurbishment of
building, etc.)
Students are entrusted
with the responsibility
to take care of the flora
and fauna in the
campus as well as
perform minor
maintenance tasks
under the supervision
of the technicians
To utilize the school
ground as a living
laboratory for
students to practice
construction,
preservation, or
conservation
Project-Based
Activity
Project-based activities
(tree house, rabbit/fish
farm, etc.) that enable
the teachers and
students to alter the
physical settings within
the campus
The fifth graders in
Green School were
responsible for the
demolition, design, and
rebuild of a chicken
coop for the school
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
plays a key role in the transformation route of producing
sustainability thinkers. They call for creative facilities that
could better equip the next generation with the problem-
solving capability leading to ecological advancement.
However, creativity in school design should not be con-
fined to building forms and facades only. Instead, designers
should strive to transform physical setting into a subject of
inspiration by rendering creativity into the learning spaces.
Interesting architectural solutions like reusing and repur-
posing reclaimed components (i.e., salvaged doors, second-
hand bricks, etc.) invariably set the stage for environmental
innovation. It stirs children’s imagination and encourages
them to find alternative and sustainable resolutions. Fur-
thermore, environmental educators should blend the basic
EE curricular with creative arts. Activities like making
interior decorations from household discards can be con-
ducted in studios, workshops, and laboratories as a part and
parcel of EE. These programs allow children to engage in
more investigation, exploration, and experimentation
where the kids could test their ideas for practical applica-
tion (OWP/P Architects Inc et al. 2010).
Finally, the theme of active learning reminds us of Van
der Ryn’s and Cowan’s (1996) statement—‘‘designs that
call for our continuing participation and involvement offer
us new teachings day by day’’ (p. 186). Connecting chil-
dren to the operation and maintenance of the school
invariably assist them in developing new knowledge or
ecological awareness (Zhu 2012). Thus, environmental
educators should fully utilize the school ground as a
medium to promote the act of learning-by-doing. Designers
should provide information-rich and stimulating environ-
ment that invites children’s participation and contribution
(Fraser and Gestwicki 2002). The delightful thing about
such a design is that it would invariably attract children’s
interest so that the desire to get involved can supersede the
impulse to sit and do nothing (Baines 2008, p. 15). For
instance, edible schoolyard can be allocated for children to
grow fruits and vegetables as lunch. Additionally, informal
Legend:
Design Feature
Design Element
Access to
Greenery
Flow of Storm Water
Restoration of Native
Vegetation
Building
MaterialsInterior
Finishes
Furnishing
PhotovoltaicMechanical / Electrical
System
Studio
Workshop
Multipurpose
Hall
Internal
Courtyard
Edible
Schoolyard
Second-Hand Door & Window Reclaimed
Bricks
Rainwater
Harvesting Water Filtration in
Wetland
Contour
Rainforest
River
ColorForm
Making
Large Opening / Window
Class under a
Tree
Garden
Texture &
Pattern
Artistic &
Inventive BuildingSpaces for
Experimentation
Exposed
Technologies /
Services
Theme 2: In
One with
Nature
Theme 3:
Creativity &
Imagination
Theme 4:
Active
Learning
Exposed
Materials
Indoor-
Outdoor
Relationship
Exposed
Ecological
Processes
3-D Textbook for EE
Theme 1:
Transparency
Outdoor
Learning
Spaces
Site Specific Features
Reuse of
Salvaged Products
Open-Ended Spaces
Operation Maintenance
Project-Based
Activity
Energy Monitoring
System
Tree
House
Rabbit / Fish Farm
Fig. 9 Design model: school as 3-D Textbook for environmental education
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123
mentor like gardener and technician can be assigned to the
children as a means of exposing them to different aspects
of training and skill (Kasal and Dogan 2010). Furthermore,
this study suggests that designers should create open-ended
spaces that can be retrofitted by the children for different
EE activities. One principal means of achieving this goal is
to provide multipurpose space like an internal courtyard
that can be easily modified to support organic farming,
recycling, composting, etc.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Our research provides a detailed account of children’s
reactions and perceptions toward 3-D Textbook with a
potential contribution to a field of knowledge that embraces
design and education. With the scarcity of scholarly liter-
ature on this subject, it breaks new ground by identifying
themes and a design model that could be examined in
future cases. In addition, the qualitative findings enable the
voice of children to be heard in the planning and design of
educational facilities. The design model places children’s
needs and ideas as the core interest with an emphasis on
creating 3-D teaching tool. Thus, the study is a significant
attempt to reunite architecture and EE, in hope of tapping
the potential of physical environment as an instrument for
knowledge transmission in schools.
On a practical level, this research benefits designers and
environmental educators who are looking for a guide to
transform physical settings into 3-D Textbook. It brings to
the practitioners’ attention, the issues and criteria that need
to be addressed in designing such innovative learning
spaces. It is expected that the design model will be
reviewed, enriched, and perfected based on the feedbacks
by design practitioners, EE communities and scholars from
various disciplines. Furthermore, the design model that
evolved through this study reflects the children’s prefer-
ence and inclination toward innovative, interactive, and
sustainable learning spaces. This should alert the practi-
tioners to the need for a paradigm shift in educational
architecture. The difference this time is that the school
design is no longer solely driven by functionality, effi-
ciency, or architectural style. Instead, we propose that
appropriate design solutions should be evolved and gen-
erated by looking into the minds of the children.
At the time of this writing, we have conducted
exchanges with various experts in international confer-
ences. Additionally, we have been invited to present the
findings to local EE practitioners as well as policy makers
in our country. We have the impression that, as a result of
this study, building professionals and educators start to
realize the untapped potential of 3-D Textbook. In addition,
the design model provides significant insights into the
qualitative dimension of the children-place relationship,
where it enlightens practitioners in the improvement of
existing schools as well as development of new project in
the future.
References
Aho, L., Huopio, J., & Huttunen, S. (1993). Learning science by
practical work in Finnish primary-schools using materials
familiar from the environment: A pilot-study. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 15(5), 497–507.
Baines, L. (2008). A teacher’s guide to multisensory learning:Improving literacy by engaging the senses. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bowers, C. A. (1995). Educating for an ecologically sustainableculture: Rethinking moral education, creativity, intelligence, andother modern orthodoxies. Albany, N.Y.: State University of
New York Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting,and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Deasy, C. M. (1974). Design for human affairs. New York: Wiley.
Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and
indirect experiences on the development of environmental
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 30(4), 379–392.
Fraser, S., & Gestwicki, C. (2002). Authentic childhood: ExploringReggio Emilia in the classroom. Albany, NY: Delmar/Thomson
Learning.
Fredrickson, L. M., & Anderson, D. H. (1999). A qualitative
exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual
inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 21–39.
Goh, A., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Facilitating students’
development of their views on nature of science: A knowledge
building approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. doi:
10.1007/s40299-012-0050-0.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the
understanding of evidence in science. International Journal ofScience Education, 18(7), 791–805.
Graham, P. (2003). Building ecology: First principles for a sustain-able built environment. Oxford; Malden, Mass: Blackwell
Science.
Griffin, J. (1998). Learning science through practical experiences in
museums. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6),
655–663.
Higgs, A. L., & McMillan, V. M. (2006). Teaching through modeling:
Four schools’ experiences in sustainability education. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 38(1), 39–53.
Hung, D., Lee, S. S., & Lim, K. Y. T. (2012). Moving forward: Key
areas of educational research for the Asia Pacific. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. doi:10.1007/s40299-012-0037-x.
James, J. J., & Bixler, R. D. (2008). Children’s role in meaning
making through their participation in an environmental educa-
tion program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4),
44–59.
Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching.
Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon Publishers.
Kasal, A., & Dogan, F. (2010). Fifth-, sixth-, and seventh- grade
students’ use of non-classroom spaces during recess: The case of
S. Y. Kong et al.
123
three private schools in Izmir. Turkey. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 30(4), 518–532.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the sourceof learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
Lim, C., & Mun-Desalle, Y. J. (2010). Learning by doing, the Green
School way. FuturArc Magazine, 17, 50–51.
Malone, K., & Tranter, P. J. (2003). School grounds as sites for
learning: Making the most of environmental opportunities.
Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 283–303.
Orr, D. (1993). Architecture as pedagogy. Conservation Biology, 7(2),
226–228.
Orr, D. (1997). Architecture as pedagogy I. Conservation Biology,11(3), 597–600.
OWP/P Architects Inc, VS Furniture, & Bruce Mau Design. (2010).
The third teacher: 79 ways you can use design to transformteaching and learning. New York: Abrams.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education:theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Rauch, F. (2000). Schools: A place of ecological learning. Environ-mental Education Research, 6(3), 245–258.
Silberman, M. L. (2007). The handbook of experiential learning. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Administration,38(4), 309–330.
Taylor, A. (1993). The learning environment as a three-dimensional
textbook. Children Environments, 10(2), 104–117.
Taylor, A., & Enggass, K. (2009). Linking architecture and educa-tion: Sustainable design for learning environments. Albuquer-
que: University of New Mexico Press.
Tempest, P. (1987). The physical, environmental, and intellectual
profile of the fifth grade najavo. Journal of American IndianEducation, 26(3), 29–40.
Van der Ryn, S. & Cowan, S. (1996). Ecological design: Tenthanniversary edition. Washington: Island Press.
Walden, R. (2009). The school of the future: Conditions and
processes: contributions of architectural psychology. In R.
Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design proposals fromarchitectural psychology (pp. 75–122). Cambridge: Hogrefe and
Huber Publishers.
Zhu, C. (2012). How innovative are schools in teaching and learning?
A case study in Beijing and Hong Kong. The Asia-PacificEducation Researcher. doi:10.1007/s40299-012-0006-4.
School as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education
123