The Relations between Physical Environment and

Psychosocial Environment: Literature Review

Sungwoong Lee and Kyungwha Cho
Florida State University
United States
sungwoong.lee@gmail.com
ckh1745@hotmail.com
Abstract: This paper is to investigate and synthesize the previous
research with regard to the physical and psychosocial environment in
learning environments. For the purpose, this study reviewed the previous
studies conducted in terms of learning environments including physical and
psychosocial environment in the electronic journal. Consequently, this
study presents relations between learning environments and learning
outcomes. Lastly, this study provides necessity of further study and
suggestions in term of future study.

Introduction
There are various factors to facilitate learning achievement and learning outcomes.
Some researchers have considered that finding a proper learning environment is one of the
possible solutions in order to improve learning outcomes (Fraser, 1998). The study of
learning environments had been started by Lewin (1936), who claimed that behavior had
been decided by interactions between the person and the environment. The learning
environment is generally a complex one and can be understood on the basis of the
psychosocial learning environment and the physical learning environment (Zanvliet, 2001).
More specifically, in the psychosocial learning environment, psychological and social
factors include satisfaction, health and ability to perform at the place of study. In addition,
the psychosocial learning environment covers interpersonal cooperation and security
against harassment and mental harm. The social environment, culture and welfare help to
promote a good psychosocial learning environment (Moos, 1973, p. 659)
In addition, originally the physical learning environment involves various factors such
as buildings, laboratories, classrooms, and other workplaces. However, the physical learning
environment in this study includes factors that may affect students learning achievement
and outcomes. In order to improve the physical learning environment, modern technologies
such as radio, television, Over-Head Projectors (OHP), and computers have been commonly
used for educational purposes in the classroom (Cuban, 1986). More recently, as information
technology (IT) has been rapidly improved, the computer has been able to have multifunctions, and thus it has been considered as an essential technology in the educational
environment.
However, although modern technology has been rapidly adopted into the classroom,
there have still been controversial in using technology in the educational environment. For
example, Cuban (1986) stressed that using technology does not guarantee a high degree of
learning outcomes, so that technologies in the classroom would disappear even if the
technology attained special attention from professionals and practitioners (Cuban, 1986). In
addition, studies addressed that the technology-enhanced classroom did not meet the needs
of teachers or students.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate and synthesize the previous

research about the relations between the physical environment and the psychosocial
environment in the classroom. This study reviewed the previous research concerned with
the physical environment and psychosocial environment in the electronic journal, JSTOR,
Sage, and ScienceDirect. Due to the lack of previous research related to this field of the
study, this literature review did not limit the time period of articles published.
Conceptual Model of Learning Environment
The initial model of learning environment came from developmental psychology,
clinical and community psychology, gerontology, and psychosomatic medicine and health
psychology (Moos, 1979). The model consists of the physical setting, the organizational
factors, the human aggregate, and social climate, as depicted by Figure 1 (Moos, 1979). In
this model, individuals can select the environment where they want to live and are affected
by other components. The key point of this model is a mediation effect between these
components. For example, the environmental system serves as mediator between the
personal system and the student stability in the model.

Figure 1. A Model of the Relationship Between Environmental and personal variables and
Student Stability and Change (Moos, 1979)
With this approach toward the environment, Moos suggested the model of the
determinants of classroom climate, which showed the relations between the classroom
characteristics and the variables in the social environment of the classroom as shown in
Figure 2 (Moos, 1979). In this model, the components of the learning environment in the
classroom, such as the school and classroom context and the physical and architectural
features, affect the classroom climate directly, but also affect it indirectly via the
organizational factors, the teacher characteristics, and aggregate student characteristics.
That is, both the organizational factors and the teacher characteristics affect the classroom
climate directly but affect indirectly via the aggregate student characteristics.

Figure 2. A Model of the Determinants of Classroom Climate (Moos, 1979)

With respect to learning environment study, Zandvliet and Fraser (2005) developed the
conceptual model for studying educational change derived from Gardiners (1989)
framework of change. Gardiner claimed that the change affected by the pressure of the
three dimensions such as the ecosphere, the socio-sphere, and the techno-sphere. The
author argued the framework of learning environment that a person is influenced by the
physical, psychosocial environment, and the IT (teaching) environment. Based on this model
originated by Zandvliet and Fraser, Zandvliet (2005) examined the relations between the
physical environment, psychosocial environment and IT (teaching) environment.
Physical Environment in learning
In a study for examining the learning factors of the faculty and the student, Lammers
and Smith (2008) investigated the physical environment in learning by questionnaires
developed by both reviewing literature and brainstorming. This study included questions
concerned with class size, characteristics of the classroom, availability of technology,
extraneous noise, and class noise. Table 1 presents the specific contents of each factor in
the questionnaires.

Table 1. Factors of the questionnaires for Physical environment (Lammers and Smith, 2008)
Factors
Contents
Class size

Shape of classroom
Characteristics of classroom

Desk/Table/Chair arrangement

Windows

Computers for student use

Overhead projector
Availability of technology

TV/VCR/DVD equipment

Multimedia/computerized projection system

Noise from other classes
Extraneous noise

Construction noise

Air conditioning/heating systems

Time of day class held
Class schedule

Time of year class held

Length of class
In Weinsteins study (1979), he tried to limit the physical to the classroom. The author
regarded a classroom as the physical environment in order to examine the impact of the
classroom environment. In this study, the author analyzed the effect of the physical
environment including classroom component, seating positions, classroom design, furniture
arrangement, density and crowding, privacy, noise, and windowless classroom. Weinstein
noted the need to examine several variables in the classroom environment, such as the
relationship between the physical design and the educational program. This reflects the
previous studies about physical environments in the classroom. Moreover, Zandvliet and
Fraser (2005) examined the physical environment in the classroom. In the study for the
induction of Information, Communication and Technology (ICT), they conducted quantitative
research to clarify the relationships among the physical environment (ergonomic),
psychosocial environment, and student satisfaction. The study distinguished the physical
environment within the spatial environment, the visual environment, the computer
environment, the workspace environment, and the air quality. According to this
categorization, the physical environment was measured by the modified version of both the
Computerized Classroom Ergonomic Inventory (CCEI) and Computerized Classroom
Ergonomic worksheet (CCEW).
Students Perception of Physical environment
Another study to examine the physical environment concerned the perceptions toward
the physical environment by students. Perception of the physical environment includes items
such as the lights in the classroom and the attitude towards safety in the school and
classroom. Zandvliet and Fraser (2005) used the same research methods to examine the
degree of fitness to students learning about the physical environment in the target
classroom. In this study, they first observed the classroom by employing the criteria for
investigating the degree of fitness for students learning, which consisted of the spatial
environment, the visual environment, the computer environment, the workspace
environment, and the air quality. In addition, Zandvliet and Fraser used a questionnaire,
which was originally developed by Pashiardis (2008) to measure the perception of the
physical environment. The questionnaire assessed how attractive, welcoming, comfortable,

and safe the environment was. Another study looked at the perceived availability of
environmental resources and the perceived importance of environmental resources (Spence
et al., 2004) were the other approaches to measure the perception of physical environment.
These studies looked only at the physical environment and not the psychosocial
environment.
Psychosocial Environment in learning
The psychosocial environment in learning includes psychological and social factors,
such as satisfaction, relationship between the students, health and ability to perform in the
class (Moos, 1973, 1979). The psychosocial environment provides good descriptive
information about how the learning environments were perceived by the student.
The study about the psychosocial environment was conducted in varied ways. For
example, to measure the psychosocial environment, the Trigwell and Prosser (1991)
employed ten items: clear objectives, clear explanations, well prepared, helped
understanding, creates interest, relevance of the subject, chance for questions, time for
consultations, clear assessment criteria, and the adequate. In addition, Church et al. (2001)
conducted a study to examine the role of perception toward the psychosocial environment
as the predictor for goal achievement and outcomes achievement of learning. In the study,
the perception toward the psychosocial environment included lecture engagement,
evaluation focus, and harsh evaluation as components. Table 2 shows the questionnaire for
psychosocial environment in previous study.
Table 2. Overview of scales contained in nine classroom environment instruments (Fraser,
1998)

Instrument

Level

Learning
Secondary
Environment
Inventory
(LEI)
Classroom
Secondary
Environment
Scale
(CES)
Individualized Secondary
Classroom
Environment
Questionnaire
(ICEQ)
My
ClassSecondary
Inventory
(MCI)
College
andHigher
Classroom
education
Environment
Inventory

Items
scale
7

Scales classified according

Scheme
perRelationship dimensions

to

Mooss

Personal developmen

Cohesiveness
Friction
Favoritism
Cliqueness
Satisfaction
Apathy
Involvement
Affiliation
Teacher support

Speed
Difficulty
Competitiveness

10

Personalization
Participation

Independence
Investigation

6-9

Cohesiveness
Friction
Satisfaction
Personalization
Involvement
Student cohesiveness
Satisfaction

Difficulty
Competitiveness

10

Task orientation
Competition

Task orientation

(CCEI)
Questionnaire Secondary/Pri 8-10
on
Teachermary
Interaction
(QTI)
Science
Upper
7
Laboratory
Secondary/Hig
Environment her education
Survey
(SLES)
Constructivist Secondary
7
Learning
Environment
Survey
(CLES)
What
IsSecondary
8
Happening In
This
Classroom
(WIHIC)

Helpful/friendly
Understanding
Dissatisfied
Admonishing
Student cohesiveness

Open-Endedness
Integration

Personal relevance
Uncertainty

Critical voice
Shared control

Student cohesiveness
Teacher support
Involvement

Investigation
Task orientation
Cooperation

Relationship between the learning environment and learning outcomes

Trigwell and Prosser (1991) indicated that there was little research about the
relationships among students perception of learning environment, the learning approaches
of student, and students outcomes. Thus, they conducted two studies about the variables
mentioned above, employing both factor analysis and correlation analysis. The study
identified the relationship between learning approaches of student, the perception of the
learning environment, and the quality of learning outcomes. The result of the study showed
that the learning approaches of student were significantly related to the perception of the
learning environment and the quality of learning outcomes. These results were consistent
with the study by Ramsden (1983) and Entwistle and Tait (1989) in that they revealed the
relationship between approaches to study and the perception of the learning environment.
But, Meyer and Parsons (1989) claimed that there had been low levels of correlation
between the approaches to study and the perception of the learning environment.
Zandvliet and Fraser (2005) employed the modified version of both the Computerized
Classroom Ergonomic Inventory (CCEI) and Computerized Classroom Ergonomic worksheet
(CCEW) for measuring the physical environment, the What Is Happening In this Class (WIHIC)
for the psychosocial environment, and a modified version of the Test Of Science Related
Attitude (TOSRA) for student satisfaction. The result of this study showed that, there were
weak and non-significant associations between the physical environment and student
satisfaction. In addition, there were significant associations between the physical
environment and the psychosocial environment. The visual environmental factor in physical
environment was significantly related to student cohesiveness, autonomy/independence,
and task orientation. They also found that the workspace environment was significantly
related to autonomy/independence, task orientation, and cooperation. Finally, There were
two significant associations between psychosocial environment and satisfaction. The
autonomy/independence and task orientation in the psychosocial environment had an
association with student satisfaction.
Furthermore, the qualitative interview in Zandvliet and Frasers study shows two
results. First, in task analysis, students observed that they had spent most of their time
interacting directly with the computer and not the teacher or teachers lecture. Second,

students and teachers preferred a peripheral layout classroom. Some teachers and students
claimed that monitors and chairs were not compatible for using computers.
Lastly, with regards to the relation between the physical environment and the
psychosocial environment, Lammers and Smith (2008) identified the variables related to
student learning. They focused on a comprehensive analysis of the perspectives between
the faculty and the students to provide an effective learning environment. In this study, the
faculty and the student thought that instructor variables were more important than either
student or physical environment variables. In addition, there was a tendency for the
instructor personality variables to be ranked highly by students. Church et al. (2001) found
the indirect relation between the perceived classroom environment and learning outcomes.
The study revealed that the perceived classroom environment, such as lecture engagement,
evaluation focus, harsh evaluation, and evaluation type, were related to the intrinsic
motivation and graded performance.
Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Study
In the review of the literature, researchers found the relations among the physical
environment, the psychosocial environment, and learning outcomes. The perception of the
learning environment related to the approached to study and the learning outcomes
(Trigwell & Poster, 1991). In addition, student thought that the instructor variable was most
important in the psychosocial environment (Lammers & Smith, 2008). Finally, the study
showed that there is association significantly between the physical environment and the
psychosocial environment, and between the psychosocial environment and the student
satisfaction (Zandvliet & Fraser, 2005). With respect to the physical environment, most
researcher limited their scope of the physical environment to classroom (Lamers & Smith,
2008, Weinstein, 1979; Zandvliet et al., 2005). Moreover, the studies in this review of
literature measured the perception of the physical environment to study the physical
environment in the classroom (Zandvliet et al., 2005; Spence et al., 2004). Another
component of the learning environment was the psychosocial environment (Church et al.,
2001; Moos, 1973, 1979; Trigwell & Prosser 1991).
The study of environment has conducted in varied field, such as architecture,
sociology, psychology and education. In the educational field, studies about learning
environment have not been done enough (Zandvliet, 2005). Moreover, the concept and
variables of the learning environment were not generalized or defined yet. The review
investigated and synthesized the previous research about the physical environment and the
psychosocial environment in the classroom. Thus, the result of this study will provide the
evidence for the future study of the learning environment.
Finally, as the literature review showed, the psychosocial environment is as important
as the physical environment for the learning environment. That is, the recent educational
setting is inclined to the use of the modern technology as the physical environment.
However, the effect of the using technology has not positively affected both the
improvement of learning environment and learning outcomes all the time. When properly
using both the physical and psychosocial environment on balance (Improving the
psychosocial environment as well as the physical environment in learning, learning
environment effectively improve to enhance learning outcomes(increase the learning
outcomes). Thus, future research needs to investigate the relations between the physical
and psychosocial environments and their application to various educational setting for
learning outcome enhancement.
References
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perception of classroom environment,
achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. American Psychological Association,
93(1), 43-54.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines : The classroom use of technology since 1920.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and
preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher education, 19, 169-194.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and
applications. Learning Environment Research, 1, 7-33.
James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical research. In D Magnusson (ED), Toward a psychology of situations. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. NY: Harcourt
Lammers, W.J., & Smith, S.M. (2008). Learning factors in the university classroom: Faculty
and student perspectives. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 61-70.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological psychology. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Magnusson, D. (1981). Problems in Environmental Analysis-An Instructional. In D. Magnusson
(Ed.), Studies in Educational Learning Environments. Singapore: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environments. American Psychologist, 28,
652-665.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. Washington: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Murray, H. A. ()1951). Toward a classification of interaction. In T. Parsons & E. A. Shils (Eds.),
Toward a general theory of action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pashiardis, G. (2008). Toward a knowledge base for school climate in Cypruss schools.
International Journal of Educational Management, 22(5), 339-416.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1990). Student evaluations of teaching and courses: Student
learning approaches and outcomes as criteria of validity. Higher Education, 20, 67-89
Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual review of psychology, 29, 253-295.
Tirgwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of
learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher
Education, 22(3), 251-266.
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.
Walberg, H. J. (1976). Psychology of learning environment. Review of Educational Research,
4, 142, 178.
Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy and
productivity. CA: McCutchan.
Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated
with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Research. 8, 1-17.
Zandvliet, D. B., & Straker, L. M. (2001). Physical and psychosocial aspect of learning
environment in the information technology rich classrooms. Ergonomics, 44(9), 838851.