Teachers with numerous biophilic elements in their schools report favorable views of biophilic design’s impact on learning Humans’ intrinsic affinity towards nature, or “biophilia,” can be leveraged to create engaging and supportive learning environments through biophilic design. Biophilic design in schools may reduce stress and improve children’s cognitive and emotional states and may therefore support academic learning. This study examines teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of children’s preferences for biophilic features at their school, and also explores teachers’ views of how design elements influence academic performance and behavior.
The first phase of the study involved the development of a framework to evaluate biophilic elements of primary schools based on existing classifications for biophilic design. Researchers defined criteria to determine if 21 biophilic attributes (such as fresh air, water, plants, animals, views, and infrastructure for outdoor learning) could be classified as “achieved,” “partially achieved,” or “not achieved.” Design elements at two primary schools in the United Kingdom were evaluated using the new framework. The second phase of the study involved assessing teachers’ views of biophilic design using surveys. Surveys were completed by a total of 11 teachers or assistants at the two schools. Four open questions focused on physical elements (windows, blinds up, materials and finishes, and plants in classrooms) aimed to assess if certain biophilic features impacted children’s performance and behavior. Parents of children at both schools were also invited to participate in an additional survey. This survey consisted of three checkbox questions which aimed to glean parents’ views on children’s preferences and desires for biophilic design elements and was completed by a total of 17 parents.
Audits of the schools’ biophilic attributes using the newly developed framework determined one school (school A) to be a ‘low-biophilic school’ with only 3 attributes achieved, and the other school (school B) a ‘higher-biophilic school’ with 15 attributes achieved. Results from teachers’ surveys showed that teachers from school B had a more positive view of the impact of the biophilic features than teachers from school A. Teachers from school B did not indicate any negative outcomes related to biophilic elements. Teachers’ perceptions of windows and blinds varied between the schools, with teachers from school B reporting positive impacts such as children being “fascinated” or “engaged,” while teachers from school A tended to describe views as a “distraction” or “disruption.” In general, teachers from school B perceived window views, natural materials and plants as “promoting observations, curiosity and discussions.” Teachers at school A had the most positive perceptions of “plants in classrooms.” At both schools, teachers reported that children behave respectfully towards plants and objects made of natural materials, and that plants are calming for the children.
Analysis of parent surveys indicated that children from school A mentioned biophilic features much less often than children from school B. Regarding children’s desires for biophilic features, many parents (35%) from school A were unaware of how children would want to change their school environment. The far majority of school B parents (83%) replied that their children would like more plants; only 24% of parents from school A indicated the same response. The most common responses from school A parents focused on increasing images of nature, colors, and natural elements. School B parent responses focused on increasing natural elements, environmental conditions, and views.
The biophilic features considered by this study appear to have an impact on children’s performance and behavior as described by teachers and parents, with differences emerging between “low-biophilic” and “higher-biophilic” schools. Findings suggest that “teachers from the “higher-biophilic” school perceive more benefits and seem more sensitive to the school’s environment conditions and their effect on children than teachers from the “low-biophilic” school.” Further, children’s preference for biophilic features may be stronger when they are exposed to more natural elements. Given the small scale of the study, research should continue to examine effects of biophilic design in educational settings.
The Bottom Line