* Tel.: #44-1223-507111; fax: #44-1223-507120.

E-mail address: pcp21@hermes.cam.ac.uk (P. Pointon).

International Journal of
Educational Research 33 (2000) 375}382
Chapter 4
Students' views of environments for learning from
the primary to the secondary school
Pam Pointon*
Homerton College, Cambridge, CB2 2PH, England, UK
Abstract
Research on transfer has alerted us to the anxieties that students experience as they move
from a smaller school to a bigger school, and how the sudden di!erences in space, size, and their
own position within a large organization can a!ect their identities as learners. Drawing on
interviews with students in their "rst year in secondary school, this chapter examines the
di!erences that students see as important in moving from the primary school to the secondary
school. Three topics are discussed: freedom of movement, seating, and classroom dis-
play. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Research focusing on the classroom environment has tended to address physical
and sensory factors or psycho-social factors. Although there has been some research
into sensory factors (notably, noise, temperature and light), little work has been done
on color. Seating arrangement has attracted more attention than any other physical
aspect of the classroom environment though this body of research is by no means
extensive. This emphasis may be due to the fact that it is the easiest aspect of the
classroom environment to observe and change.
Fraser (1991) suggested that the strongest tradition in classroom environment
research has involved investigations of associations between cognitive and a!ective
learning outcomes and children's perceptions of the psycho-social characteristics of
their classrooms. One inference is that student learning outcomes might be improved
by creating classroom environments found empirically to be conducive to learning.
Fraser and Fisher (1983) suggested that students wanted a more `positivea classroom
environment (here relating to preferences for competitive, cohesive, independent, and
organized classrooms) than their present one and that teachers perceived the present
0883-0355/00/$- see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 8 3 - 0 3 5 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 3 - 9
environment to be more `positivea than did many of their students in the same
classrooms. There is some evidence that positive perception of the classroom environ-
ment is associated with better academic performance (Fraser & Fisher, 1983), al-
though Hattie (1986), in contrast, suggested that the evidence of the relationship
between preferred classroom environment and learning outcomes is weak. Most
studies have focused on whole class perceptions although there has been some attempt
to investigate gender di!erences in preferred classroom environment (see, for example,
Owen & Straton, 1980).
Teachers' perceptions of the classroom environment have also received some
attention. Cooper (1985) concluded that teachers' working environments may be of
low importance to them. The environment is likely to remain in the background,
unnoticed and so be taken for granted. This might be a re#ection of teachers' priorities
or, for some, a lack of awareness of environmental factors. Certainly, individual
teachers express di!erent views on various elements of the classroom environment
and their importance in helping children learn (Pointon & Kershner, 2000). One
signi"cant "nding of the Pointon and Kershner study was the mismatch between
teachers' and children's perceptions and the consequent importance of listening to
children's opinions about the learning environment.
The present small-scale study involved interviewing students at the end of their "rst
year at secondary school about their preferred learning environments and their
perceptions of the main di!erences between classroom environments in primary and
secondary schools. This important post-transfer phase in students' experience has
been well researched. Several major studies have focused on students' anxieties
(Measor & Woods, 1984; Delamont & Galton, 1986). A few have focused on improve-
ments in transfer arrangements (Alston, 1988). Recent small-scale studies have focused
more on teaching in particular subjects (Stables, 1995) while others have examined the
e!ects of transfer on student motivation (Rogers, Galloway, Armstrong, Jackson,
& Leo, 1994). Almost two decades ago Galton and Wilcocks (1983) found a marked
decline in achievement, motivation, and enjoyment and suggested that the disparity
between the child centeredness of primary school and subject centeredness of second-
ary school was a key explanatory factor. While some studies have investigated
students' accounts of their transfer experiences, little has been published about
students' views of changes in their classroom learning environments as they move
from the primary to the secondary school.
This study was carried out with thirteen 11 and 12 yr olds in "ve comprehensive
schools in a small town in East Anglia. The interviews took place at the end of the
summer term, 1998, after the students had almost completed their "rst year at
secondary school. The students had previously been part of a larger study involving
a total of 70 9}11 yr olds in primary schools and their three class teachers. The focus of
the original study was to explore and compare students' and teachers' views of the
classroom environment (see Pointon & Kershner, 2000). This follow-up study with
some of the original Year 6 students focused on students' perceptions of their new
environments after they had transferred to secondary schools and how they thought
the new settings were a!ecting their learning. The students were interviewed individ-
ually (as they had been previously) and they were reminded of their views of their
376 P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382
primary classroom environments as well as their earlier feelings about moving to
secondary school.
Most research accounts (see, for example, Rudduck, Chaplain, & Wallace, 1996)
focus on students' reactions to the size of the new school which tends, not surprisingly,
to have a powerful impact. Such reports also emphasize the anxiety and embarrass-
ment as students try to "nd their way around the new school and sometimes arrive
late for lessons. The study reported here raises some issues about the move to the new
school that have not been the focus of earlier research reports.
1. Moving around
In many schools today it is the teachers who `owna the classroom and the students
who move around the school. This is not merely an important loss of corporate
territory for each class, but guarantees the Paddington Station e!ect; every
40 minutes the bell rings and hordes of students pack into narrow corridors
(Hargreaves, 1989, p. 182).
One of the main di!erences in students' experience of the physical environment of
their new schools was studying di!erent subjects in di!erent classrooms and the
consequent movement around school entailed. Previous research into primary}sec-
ondary transfer has highlighted the problematic nature of this movement of large
numbers of students and the consequent threat to disciplined behavior. However, the
negative reactions have tended to come more from the teachers; some students
actually like this sense of movement (Delamont & Galton, 1986). The commonly held
assumption has been that students have freedom of movement in primary schools
while being denied it in secondary schools; in fact, this may be so in relation to
movement around the classroom, but in primary schools opportunities to move
round the school were restricted.
The majority of students in the present study indicated that they too liked moving
from classroom to classroom * for a variety of reasons. For some it was changes in
the social environment which were the prime advantage. As one student said: `I don't
prefer staying in the same room because you get to know di!erent people in di!erent
rooms.a For others, moving to specialist rooms * which they had not experienced
before * strengthened their sense of di!erent subjects and the di!erent learning styles
associated with them.
I think it's better learning in lots of di!erent rooms because in my primary school
you would learn about maths and then change to English and you'd forget all about
the maths. But when you're in di!erent rooms you remember all the things about
geography or science (Student A).
Research into underachievement has highlighted boys' (and also some girls') rest-
lessness when they are con"ned for long periods to one space. As a consequence,
concentration can #ag, as Gordon and Lahelma (1996) observed.
P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382 377
Boys in secondary schools
2
try to, so it seems, decrease their immobility and
increase their limited space by rocking their chairs, tapping their pencils, shifting
and tapping the #oor. They have restless feet. Girls, however, tend to sit more
quietly. Their way of escaping immobility is not so much through use of space, but
through state of mind. We see more examples of girls sitting with a dreamy look,
sometimes their hair pulled forward so that it covers part of their face * they
escape into fantasies (p. 306).
Secondary school students appreciated the opportunities to move around in a lar-
ger campus:
Well sometimes you feel more free when you move around. In primary school you
have to stay in the one room all day, but now you get a bit of fresh air when you
want it and it's much better (Student B).
I like it because it gives me a break from sitting down, so I can walk around, and
when we change classrooms we're allowed to go to the toilet and have a drink
(Student C).
Gordon and Lahelma (1996) studied the way children become `professional stu-
dentsa. They noted that the "rst day at secondary school included a strong emphasis
on communicating the school rules, mainly dealing with the control of time, space,
movement, and noise. Typically, classrooms are teachers' spaces. `For teachers their
classroom is more of a private space, for students it is more of a public spacea (p. 307).
Their research suggested that students tended to look for their own areas in spaces
that were not part of the `o$ciala school where teaching, learning, and administration
takes place.
The students in the present study con"rmed their feelings that in secondary school
there were no spaces they felt were their own. One boy said he liked going to the
library and working on a computer `so you can say that's a kind of own spacea. Here
he highlights the importance, for some, of psychological space rather than physical
space. For one girl, however, physical space was very important:
When you don't have your own area, it's something that really annoys me. When
I want to be on my own there's absolutely nowhere. I mean you can go round the
PE (physical education) blocks but I'm not supposed to go there.
2
but there's no
way you can make sure every child has somewhere they can be on their own. It can't
be done.
Here the student focuses on personal space and privacy but communal student
space is also important, as we saw above, and the designation of a `common rooma
for older year cohorts is a much -prized privilege.
378 P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382
2. Classrooms as learning environments
For many students light and space are important and here the size of the secondary
classrooms * often not as full of resources as primary classrooms * appealed to the
Year 7 students. They also liked the orderliness of the new classroom environment:
My classroom has got big windows which you can open. There's lots of light. It's
got blinds so if it's really sunny you can just turn them. There's also lots of
cupboards and the teacher puts our books in a cupboard and locks it so we don't
have to worry about our books getting nicked from our bags (Student D).
The science room is a very nice room. It's not the best subject but because of its big
windows, a lot of light comes, and the windows are open most of the time. A lot of
air can come in and it's not stu!y and dark.
2
It's nicely spread out as well. There's
just two big rows of tables (Student E).
Students were also clear about which rooms in secondary schools they did not like
working in and here again they mentioned size, temperature, color, and tidiness as
contributing to the quality of the working environment.
The art room-well, it's messy. I have to search for ages looking for everything.
I don't really get on with my work because I'm looking for a pair of scissors and
I can't "nd them (Student F).
The maths room is dense and hot and stu!y and one color. That's why I feel I don't
like maths.
2
It's not a very nice room. The windows are really small. If they had
more light or they opened the window, may be put up better displays, may be just
painted it a di!erent color. It's a sort of dark yellow and the tables are just boring as
well. Everywhere else they're nice wooden tables, but (here) they're plastic. Also
because it's hot you're concentrating on trying to get cooler rather than getting the
work done (Student G).
If you're in a completely grey room it's not going to help you learn because you
think `This is so boring, I don't feel happy.a It makes you feel sad, that kind of
thing. But if you're in a roomwith loads of color, it spruces you up a bit (Student H).
It is interesting that most students were able to distinguish between their feelings
about the subject or the teacher from their feelings about the classrooms * although
negative feelings about a room can transfer to the subject itself.
3. Displays
For one boy, a key di!erence between primary and secondary school is that of
ownership of the classroom environment. In primary school `you draw a picture and
P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382 379
you display ita. But in the secondary school `the classroom arrangement is up to the
teacher''. He felt the primary classroom was more `hisa.
Other comments about `displaya related less to issues of ownership and more to the
purpose of display and how it relates to learning. The data suggest, again, the
importance of seeing things from the students' perspective. One boy highlighted an
interesting issue where there were similarities between primary and secondary schools:
displays of students' work, he said, `are put up after you've done something and so it
doesn't really helpa. Here he is aware of the lost opportunity of using displays to
support work in progress. Another student found that displays were less helpful in her
secondary school:
Usually there are only posters anyway, and because you have to do the work on
your own there's no help, you can't get it from looking at the displays. If there are
any displays it's of a di!erent year's work and that doesn't help (Student I).
It might be expected that all primary-age children appreciate displays. However,
the earlier study with Year 6 children highlighted individual di!erences in this
regard, with some children "nding displays distracting. Most secondary schools
do not place as much emphasis on displays as do most primary schools, although
there are di!erences from school to school and teacher to teacher. Further re-
search is needed on how displays can more e!ectively help students learn; educators
might also think about explaining the rationale for displays and how they di!er from
primary to secondary school and, within the secondary school, from one subject to
another.
4. Seating
In the primary school students usually spend a lot of time at a table with two or
three other students. The secondary school o!ers the possibility not only of experienc-
ing a range of di!erent seating patterns during the school day, but also of indepen-
dence. The chance to sit alone is, for some, not just a novelty, but an aid to greater
concentration.
When you talk with your friends they sometimes distract you. If you're on your own,
you know you've got to do something and so you do your work. You can't be
bothered when you're with friends, but you can be bothered when you're not
(Student J).
Working in a group was still favored by some students, particularly for some
tasks. Groups allowed students to share ideas and be less dependent on the teacher.
Once again, the issue of autonomy and independence emerges as a strong concern in
the "rst year of secondary school. Furthermore, whereas in the primary school
students might sit together without necessarily working together, in secondary school
they were learning, in some subjects, how to work e!ectively together. They could
380 P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382
distinguish between friends who were good to work with and friends who were not
(see the chapter by Demetriou et al. in this volume).
The issue of ownership also emerged in relation to seating. The Year 6 students had
liked having their own table and chair in the primary school. As a primary teacher
explained:
I had one child who put drawing pins into his chair so he knew that was his chair.
He couldn't see the drawing pins, but if he didn't have that chair he got into
a terrible state and went round looking at all the chairs until he got his one back.
It's like when they put their labels on their drawers, that makes it theirs.
For the primary child personalizing the classroom is easier to achieve, but how do
secondary students, who may change classrooms every 40 minutes, attain the `owner-
ship and defense of geographical areasa (Altman, 1975, p. 5). Secondary students
typically do not have their own spaces; their desk during a lesson is only `borroweda,
as it were.
5. Discussion
It would be di$cult for teachers to meet every individual student's preference with
regard to the sensory and physical environment. What is achievable, however, is for
teachers to make clear the ground rules of the classroom and the occasions where
students can have choices. Teachers may also want to think how to enable students to
re#ect on what aspects of the classroom setting help and hinder their learning. This is
important because there seem to be di!erences between a teacher's judgment of
a good classroom in which to teach and a student's view of what is a good classroom
in which to learn. As Woods (1990) pointed out, `the parties to negotiation have
di!erent interestsa. One way of hearing the students' voice is through open discussions
about the classrooms in which they prefer to learn. One secondary school recently
conducted a large-scale survey of students' preferences with regard to classroom
environments and the data in#uenced the schools' spending plans. Including students
in the decisions made about how scarce "nancial resources are to be prioritized may
well be important in making students feel greater ownership of classroom spaces. In
this regard, Reynolds (1992) found that in the most e!ective schools students were
given a sense of responsibility and control over their environment and were able to
develop shared goals with their teachers. This concurs with theories about the
psychological signi"cance of perceiving one's environment as controllable.
What small-scale, interview-based research of the kind reported in this chapter can
do is to sensitize teachers and researchers to a range of in#uences and unintended
e!ects which may often pass unnoticed as teachers strive to cope with the normal
burdens of their daily work. The following two questions are among the most
interesting questions to emerge from this study.
E How far are students' comments about physical features of the classroom
environment a coded means of discussing matters they may "nd less easy to talk
P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382 381
about * such as their dislike or fear of certain subjects or teachers and their
anxieties about the social climate in situations that are new to them?
E To what extent is it possible for teachers to give students, through the classroom
and school environment, a greater sense of control and ownership of the spaces in
which they work and learn?
The evidence from this small-scale study suggests that further investigation of the
issue could provide important payo!s for schools in terms of students' improved
attitude to school and commitment to learning.
References
Alston, C. (1988). Secondary transfer project, Bulletin 2. ILEA.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Cooper, I. (1985). Teachers' assessments of primary school buildings: The role of the physical environment
in education. British Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 253}269.
Delamont, S., & Galton, M. (1986). Inside the secondary classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fraser, B.J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),
Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. New York: Pergamon Press.
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983). Use of actual and preferred classroom environmental scales in
person}environment "t research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 19}27.
Galton, M., & Wilcocks, J. (1983). Moving from the primary classroom. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gordon, T., & Lahelma, E. (1996). School is like an ant's nest: Spatiality and embodiment in schools. Gender
and Education, 8, 303}310.
Hargreaves, D. (1989). The challenge for the comprehensive school. London: Routledge Kegan and Paul.
Hattie, J. (1986). Preferred classroom environment and approach to learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 58, 345}349.
Measor, L., & Woods, P. (1984). Changing schools. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Owen, L., & Straton, R. G. (1980). The development of a cooperative, competitive and individualised
learning preference scale for students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 147}161.
Pointon, P., & Kershner, R. (2000). Making decisions about organising the primary classroom environment
as a context for learning: The views of three experienced teachers and their students. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16, 117}127.
Reynolds, D. (1992). School e!ectiveness and school improvements: an updated review of the British
literature. In D. Reynolds, & P. Cuttance (Eds.), School ewectiveness: Research, policy and practice.
London: Cassell.
Rogers, C., Galloway, D., Armstrong, D., Jackson, C., & Leo, E. (1994). Changes in motivational style over
the transfer from primary to secondary school: Subject and dispositional e!ects. Education and Child
Psychology, 11(2), 26}38.
Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R., & Wallace, G. (1996). School improvement: What can pupils tell us?. London:
David Fulton.
Stables, K. (1995). Discontinuity in transition: Students' experiences of science and technology in Year 6 and
Year 7. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 157}169.
Woods, P. (1990). The happiest days: How students cope with school. London: Falmer Press.
Pam Pointon is senior lecturer in primary education at Homerton College, Cam-
bridge. Her research interests include global education, teaching and learning styles
and the classroom environment.
382 P. Pointon / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 375}382