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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0050-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0037-x

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.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0006-4