The structure of a modern school – case study

    Grėtė Vilbikienė   Affiliation


The aim of this article is to test and apply the developed methodology of research on the correlation between the physical learning environment and education, analysing Vilnius Geroji Viltis Progymnasium. The article analyses functional-spatial structure and usability of the selected school (applying the principles of post occupancy evaluation (POE), and analyses the school culture and the needs of school community groups, which are compared with modern Lithuanian educational goals and objectives. The functional-spatial structure of the analysed school is compared with the general school model of the 21st century formed in the author’s previous research, which distinguishes 7 features of the physical learning environment that define the quality of the modern learning environment. It also examines the extent to which the current physical school environment satisfies and meets the school culture and community needs. The article provides guidelines for the implementation of the harmony of school culture (values and needs) and its physical environment, which allows each school to self-assess the physical learning environment and its cultural and 21st century school physical environment characteristics and assumptions and opportunities to meet them.

Keyword : school culture, school school culture, school architecture, general 21st century school model, school community needs, 21st century school environment characteristics, modern educational goals and objectives

How to Cite
Vilbikienė, G. (2022). The structure of a modern school – case study. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 46(1), 11-19.
Published in Issue
Mar 1, 2022
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Bakó-Biró, Z., Clements-Croome, D. J., Kochhar, N., Awbi, H. B., & Williams, M. J. (2012). Ventilation rates in schools and pupils’ performance. Building and Environment, 48(1), 215–223.

Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2019). A systematic review of the effects of innovative learning environments on teacher mind frames (Technical report No. 5). The University of Melbourne.

Clark, J., Woolner, P., Laing, K., & Tiplady, L. (2013). Making connections: Theory and practice of using visual methods to aid participation in research. In ECER 2013 (pp. 1–22). Newcastle University.

Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28.

de Souza, L. N., & Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. (2017). Importance of learning modalities in the comfort school architecture. In XIV ENCAC X ELACAC 2014–2021. At Balneário Camboriú.

Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63.

Duthilleul, Y., Blyth, A., Imms, W., & Maslauskaite, K. (2018). School design and learning environments in the city of Espoo, Finland. Council of Europe Development Bank, Paris.

Gislason, N. (2015). The open plan high school: Educational motivations and challenges. In P. Woolner (Ed.), School design together. Routledge.

Jucevičienė, P. (1996). Organizacijos elgsena. Technologija.

Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo ir mokslo ministerija. (2015). Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo ir mokslo ministro įsakymas „Dėl Geros mokyklos koncepcijos patvirtinimo“ (Nr. V-1308). Vilnius.

Mäkelä, T. (2018). A design framework and principles for co-designing learning environments fostering learning and wellbeing. In Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research. University of Jyväskylä.

Mäkelä, T., Kankaanranta, M., & Helfenstein, S. (2014). Considering learners’ perceptions in designing effective 21st century learning environments for basic education in Finland. International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 20(3), 1–13.

Monsur, M. (2015). Does child care architecture matter? Investigating how indoor-outdoor spatial relations influence child engagement and teacher motivation [Dissertation].

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Innovative learning environments: Educational research and innovation.

Pedro, N., Baeta, P., Paio, A., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2017, March 6–8). Redesigning classrooms for the future: gathering inputs from students, teachers and designers. In 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 7908–7917). IATED.

Sanoff, H. (2008). School building assessment methods. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Stadler-Altmann, U. (2015). Learning environment: The influence of school and classroom space on education. In The Routledge international handbook of social psychology of the classroom (pp. 252–262). Taylor & Francis Inc.

Todd, A., Xhomaqi, B. Boivin, P., & Ramirez, J. B. (2019). 21st century learning environments.

Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55–73.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., McKenney, S., Cullinan, D., & Heuer, J. (2017). Aligning pedagogy with physical learning spaces. European Journal of Education, 52(3), 253–267.

Woolner, P., & Cardellino, P. (2021). Crossing contexts: Applying a system for collaborative investigation of school space to inform design decisions in contrasting settings. Buildings, 11, 496.

Woolner, P., & Stadler-Altmann, U. (2021). Openness – flexibility – transition. Nordic prospects for changes in the school learning environment. Education Inquiry, 12, 301–310.