© 2021 Children, Youth and Environments 

Children, Youth and Environments 31(2), 2021 

 
 

Where to Hang Out:  
Interplay between School Building Characteristics, 

Authority Structures, and School Micro-Climates 
 

Elke Altenburger 

Benjamin R. Wellenreiter 
Illinois State University 

 
 

 
Citation: Altenburger, E., & Wellenreiter, B. R. (2021). Where to hang out: 

Interplay between school building characteristics, authority structures, and 

school micro-climates. Children, Youth and Environments, 31(2), 1-33. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi  
  

 
Abstract 
This comparative case study examines non-classroom spaces within two rural, 

midwestern high schools in the U.S., relying on a critical pedagogy of place 

perspective (Gruenewald, 2008). Participant descriptions focus on the interplay 
between school building characteristics and local authority structures. The 

juxtaposition of two demographically similar populations led by administrators of 

similar mindset, in different physical settings, highlights the influence of school 

building types in supporting or undermining place-based authority processes. The 

authors argue that purposeful alignment of social, physical, and organizational 
aspects can foster positive school climates. They recommend involving vulnerable 

students in the evaluation of environmental stressors in non-classroom spaces. 

 

Keywords: secondary schools, school climate, school buildings, non-instructional  

spaces, adolescent socialization 

  

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 2 

Architecture regulates and influences people in purposeful, systematic ways (Shah 

& Kesan, 2007). Public school buildings are considered important tools for 
attainment of educational goals and social order (Markus, 1993). Investigations of 

school buildings traditionally evaluate classroom spaces for their effects on 

academic outcomes (Uline, Tschannen-Moran, & Wolsey, 2009). In contrast, non-

classroom spaces are often studied for their relationships to social problems (Astor, 

Meyer, & Behre, 1999; Perkins, Perkins, & Craig, 2014; Vaillancourt et al., 2010; 
Woods, 2001). Non-classroom spaces are, however, deeply connected to student 

academic achievement, confidence, and perception of self-worth (Maxwell & 

Schlechtman, 2012; Uline et al., 2009). Studies of interactions between educational 

spaces and educational practices are both rare and important (Daniels, Stables, 

Tse, & Cox, 2019). 

 
Viewing all school spaces as integrated and influencing academic, social, and 

emotional development, we explore the social learning environments of non-

classroom spaces in two rural high schools in the midwestern United States. 

Specifically, we explore dynamic interactions between school building design, school 

practices manifested through each school’s administrative philosophy regarding 
student autonomy, and the resultant yet evolving micro-climates created by school 

community members in the buildings informing them. 

 

Connections between Buildings, Practices, Authority Structures, and 
Relationships 
When working to expand understanding of the effects of the physical environment 

beyond basic variables for which consistent evidence has been established, the 

dynamic relationships between the environment and behaviors within increasingly 
need to be filtered through specific social contexts (Higgins, Hall, Wall, Woolner, & 

McCaughey, 2005). Important to the holistic evaluation of school environments are 

school practices. To avoid sending conflicting messages to students, educators need 

to implement practices that decrease dissonance among complex goals (Perry-

Hazan & Birnhack, 2018). Clearly defined rules and expectations need to be 
effectively communicated (Galton, Hargreaves, Comber, Wall, & Pell, 1999) to 

better meld educators’ and students’ often divergent perspectives of the socio-

spatial qualities of their buildings (Maxwell, 2000; Wellenreiter, 2021). 

 

Those familiar with schools in the United States know that decisions about which 

spaces are accessible to students during breaks from class are typically the result of 
careful consideration by educators. Administrators also usually devote substantial 

effort to the regulation of school routines, student break experiences, and students’ 

behaviors in these spaces. With often low expectations for student behavior (Hope, 

2009), many U.S. school administrators address safety and discipline concerns with 

practices and policies such as the presence of police officers, video surveillance, and 
zero-tolerance policies (Arum & Ford, 2012; Nolan, 2009). Recognized are the 

ineffectiveness, unintended negative consequences, and biases of these practices 

and policies (Johnson, Boyden & Pittz, 2001; Okilwa & Robert, 2017; Skiba & 

Peterson, 1999). International comparisons of student behavior and school 

discipline practices suggest support of teachers’ moral authority and students who 
perceive school rules as fair are more effective than greater sanctions and stricter 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 3 

enforcement of rules (Arum & Ford, 2012; Gottfredson, Fink & Graham, 1994). 

 
Authority structures are the foundations on which students are either granted or 

denied access to non-classroom spaces. Intertwined with pupils’ autonomy are trust 

(Mullin, 2014) and trustful student–teacher relationships. Teacher perceptions of 

students’ trustworthiness is connected to school organization and size (Van Maele & 

Van Houtte, 2011). Together, space, schedules, and routines influence the quality 
and frequency of communication between students and between students and 

administrators. This spatiotemporal order facilitates opportunities for 

communication and the extension of relationships between stakeholders (Gross, 

2004; Higgins et al., 2005). Dynamic relationships between the building’s social 

affordances (Gibson, 1979), authority structures, and school community members 

shape students’ perceptions of non-classroom spaces. 
 

School Climate 

School climate as a concept integrates physical, social, and organizational aspects 

of school environments to holistically understand a school’s quality (Davidovitch & 

Casakin, 2015; Gislason, 2009; Voight & Nation, 2016). The National School 
Climate Center (NSCC, 2020) measures 14 subcategories of school community 

members’ perceptions of their institution’s climate. The primary categories are (1) 

safety, (2) teaching and learning, (3) interpersonal relationships, (4) institutional 

environment, (5) social media, and (6) leadership and professional relationships of 

staff members. This study addresses the physical environment as a dimension of 
category 4, the institutional environment. Indicators for the contribution of 

“physical surroundings” are currently limited in the NSCC framework to cleanliness, 

order, appeal of the facilities, and adequate resources and materials (NSCC, 2020).  

 

We argue that contributions of the social affordances (Gibson, 1979) of the physical 

environment to school climate are underestimated and underexplored. We suggest 
that a wider range of more concrete physical qualities contribute to school climates 

and their embedded micro-climates. Further, we believe each school space has its 

own micro-climate and that it is useful to explore contributions of spaces designed 

to serve and support social goals. Figure 1 illustrates our research findings and our 

contributions to an expanded understanding of the interacting aspects of dynamic 
school climates. We rearranged the NSCC’s six institutional climate categories into 

four: (1) physical environment, (2) school practices that facilitate the social life 

within, (3) local authority structures, and (4) interpersonal relationships. Our 

revised model incorporates all 14 NSCC subcategories (presented in blue in Figure 

1), repeating several that could be viewed through multiple lenses. All aspects of 
school climate established by NSCC—including all items in the interpersonal 

relationships category—are noted in blue; all new aspects that emerged from our 

data are noted in red.  

 

Our expanded list of physical attributes noted in red in Figure 1 are part of the core 
findings of this research study. Additional aspects that influenced our participants’ 

perceptions and behavior, belonging to the school practice and authority structures 

categories, are also noted in red in Figure 1. Finally, we put students’ perceptions 

and behaviors in the non-classroom spaces at the center of our investigation 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 4 

because students are most directly affected but least often consulted (Cook-Sather, 

2002). Conveying the influence of history and experiences on these factors, we 
added a third dimension to this framework, recognizing their dynamic natures 

influenced by time. 

 

Figure 1. Interacting aspects influencing student perceptions of dynamic  

 school micro-climates 
 

   



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 5 

Exceptional Approaches to Authority  

“[P]rogressive, humanistic conceptualizations of learners based on trust” have 
remained exceptions to the predominant U.S. school culture, which instead is 

typically driven by fear and adults’ need to control student behavior (Cook-Sather, 

2002, p. 4). School building design, however, has changed dramatically over the 

last two decades. The conceptualization of school buildings as classifying devices 

(Markus, 1993) has evolved. Architects and researchers have found that changing 
learning environments influences school experiences (Daniels et al., 2019). Modern 

school design better supports learning activities, such as collaborative student 

work, with employment of informal spaces, while past generations of buildings 

encouraged strict teacher-centered pedagogies (Dudek, 2000; Mahony, Hextall & 

Richardson, 2011; Pearlman, 2010; Uduku, 2015; Walden, 2015; Woolner, Hall, 

Higgins, McCaughey, & Wall, 2007). Emphasized in newer designs are 
environmental comfort for users (Bernardi & Kowaltowski, 2006) and support for, 

not hinderance of, student social encounters. 

 

In our ongoing conversations with them, educators in newer school buildings 

describe frustration at incongruence between their new physical environments and 
supervision practices to which they were accustomed. Educators report insufficient 

levels of control over student social activities during non-instructional times in 

newly expanded and openly connected non-classroom spaces. Essentially, school 

physical spaces were changing, but educators’ authority philosophies and practices 

were not.  
 

To deepen understanding of interactions between architectural characteristics of 

school spaces, authority structures, and stakeholders, we explore student 

perspectives of non-classroom spaces in two rural high schools: one of a teacher-

centric, institutional design and one of a student-centered, comfortable design. 

 
Theoretical Framework 

We explore these school environments through a lens of critical pedagogy of place 

(Gruenewald, 2003; 2008). Suggesting engagement in “needed conversation about 

the relationship between the places we call schools and the places where we live 

our lives” (Gruenewald, 2003, p. 623), we look inward on schools as places with 
important micro-environments where students live their lives (Gruenewald, 2003). 

Blending sociological, ideological, political, and ecological dimensions of spaces 

(Gruenewald, 2003), we explore these school spaces and processes as 

hegemonically, culturally, and ideologically infused. Both daily and over the long 

term, adolescents interacting in these spaces navigate multiple overt and tacit 
authority structures informed by and informing the physical spaces in which the 

students exist. This investigation explores interplay between these influences, 

focusing on messages received by participants engaged in these spaces. This work 

responds to Gruenewald’s (2003) focus on: 

 
(a) revealing the relevance of place as a unit of cultural and ecological 

analysis, (b) demonstrating the many ways that places are pedagogical, and 

(c) supporting the claim that educational research, theory, and practice need 

to pay more attention to places (p. 621). 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 6 

 

Exploration of student perceptions of spaces where they learn concepts of authority, 
economics, culture, and social interaction is a foundational step to encourage 

“teachers and students to re-inhabit their places, that is, to pursue the kind of 

social action that improves the social and ecological life of places, near and far, now 

and in the future” (Gruenewald, 2008, p. 314). 

 

Method 
A review of literature regarding the effects of school design on their users’ 
responses uncovers a lack of qualitative studies and an associated “excessive 

fragmentation of the environmental complexity,” particularly in the evaluation of 

school interiors (Manca, Cerina, Tobia, Sacchi, & Fornara, 2020 p. 31). Manca and 

colleagues (2020) suggest holistic inquiry into the personal experience of school 

users. This investigation is a comparative ethnographic (Erickson, 1984; Green, 
Skukauskaite & Baker, 2011; Wolcott, 1997), multi-case study (Flyvbjerg, 2011; 

Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) coming from a critical perspective (Anderson, 1989). We 

used Maxwell’s (2013) interactive model to design the research project. 

 

Essential questions of our inquiry were: 

1. What happens regularly during the breaks at these two rural high schools? 

2. What are the most popular student spaces during non-instructional times? 

3. How are these spaces described and understood? 

4. How do these spaces contribute to the local school climate? 

 

Research Site Selection 
We selected two demographically and socioeconomically similar rural schools in the 

midwestern United States: Country High School and Prairie High School 

(pseudonyms). Country High served a single small community. At the time of this 

study, it had 385 students and a per pupil expenditure of $9,700. Ninety percent of 

the students at Country High were White, 4 percent Hispanic, 4 percent mixed-race, 
and 1 percent Asian. Thirty-seven percent of the student population belonged to 

households of low-income status. Country High School was completed in 2014 and 

had classrooms clustered around shared open zones intended to foster student 

collaboration (Figure 2). 

 
  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 7 

Figure 2. Country High floor plan diagram 
 

 

 
With a student population of 540, Prairie High was located at the center of a 

geographically large school district in the same state. Its per pupil expenditure was 

$14,000. Ninety-three percent of the students at Prairie High were White, 3 percent 

Hispanic, 3 percent mixed-race, 1 percent Black, and 1 percent Asian. Thirty-three 

percent of the students belonged to households of low-income status. Prairie High 

occupied a building constructed in 1972, characterized by narrow, locker-lined 
circulation hallways that facilitated access to tight rows of classrooms on both sides 

(Figure 3). 

 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 8 

Figure 3. Prairie High floor plan diagram 
 

 

Data Collection 

Serving as ethnographers, two professors and one graduate student experienced 

both school environments and visited the sites in pairs to coordinate data collection 

proceedings. During three fall months, each site was observed on various days on a 
weekly basis for full school days by at least one collaborator. Observations of 

stakeholders’ behaviors and conversations were conducted in non-classroom spaces 

such as lunchrooms, common areas, collaborative spaces, hallways, and libraries. 

Balancing the need to maintain a natural environment with student and educator 

curiosity, we answered any questions regarding our presence but did not actively 
seek out conversation with students. We observed interactions between students, 

focusing on how they used spaces available to them, paying special attention to 

social engagements between students and adults in charge of supervision. We 

wrote ethnographic field notes describing observed behavior as neutrally as 

possible, avoiding judgement and interpretation of interactions (Emerson, Fretz & 
Shaw, 1995). Place-based behavioral maps (Ng, 2016) were created both early and 

late in the data collection phase. During early site visits, we used floor plan 

excerpts to record regular locations of different peer groups such as football 

players, “band kids,” and other groups, as well as times of arrival and locations of 

supervising adults. The maps helped us match student groups with their territories 

(Delaney, 2005). They also helped us understand which spaces were occupied first 
or were occupied by the largest groups of students.  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 9 

 

During the second half of the school year, we conducted semi-structured individual 
interviews. When these started, student participants also used floor plan excerpts 

to mark spaces and furniture arrangements in places they used to meet friends or 

considered favorite places. We also collected documents designed to inform school 

routines and regulate student behavior, such as student handbooks and bell 

schedules. The schedules illustrated the level of complexity of both schools’ regular 
routines and how much time students had been afforded for social interaction. The 

handbooks were used to compare the public transcript (Scott, 1990) of school 

behavioral guidelines with the school disciplinary culture described by participants 

and observed by the researchers. 

 

Participant Selection 
Employing a stratified purposeful participant selection approach (Palinkas et al., 

2015; Sandelowski, 2000), we sought names of prospective participants through 

school counselors. As caring adults focusing on the emotional and social well-being 

of students, counselors have unique insights into both social and authority 

structures of their school communities. We sought students who reflected relative 
cross-sections of genders, diverse backgrounds, diverse socio-economic and peer 

and social groups, and extracurricular interests. After introductory informational 

meetings, five students at Prairie High and seven students at Country High 

participated in interviews. Principals, counselors, and librarians from both schools 

represented adult perspectives of social processes in the non-instructional spaces. 
Participants’ names have been replaced with pseudonyms. 

 

Data Analysis 

After interview transcription, the two main investigators and an undergraduate 

research assistant—and former Country High student—engaged in collaborative 

open coding. We coded the transcripts, adjusting codes and their definitions as the 
first-round process unfolded (Saldoña, 2021). The second phase of coding was 

predominantly conducted by the primary investigator with peer debriefing (Lincoln 

& Guba, 1985) by the second investigator concerning the development of the 

overarching terms (Weston et al., 2001): locations, space, times, rules, 

supervision, students’ hang-outs, digital social space, and place/culture. Long 
excerpts were double- and triple-coded, then followed up with investigation of 

strong code co-occurrences. The primary investigator wrote memos describing the 

nature of these code co-occurrences, then condensed them into major themes and 

compared them across cases. She then connected the contents of relevant 

documents serving as secondary data sources. During a final round of data 
analysis collected from student participants, we identified and highlighted NSCC’s 

indicators of school climate to deepen understanding of their presence in the 

student perception data. The second investigator served as peer debriefer (Lincoln 

& Guba, 1985), again by reviewing two especially data-rich interviews, one 

belonging to each case. He confirmed proceedings, findings, and appropriateness 
of the summation and contextualization of student participants’ perspectives as 

documented in Figure 4.  

 

Figure 4 offers condensed primary data in the form of relevant brief excerpts from 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 10 

all student interviews. Three of the four categories of the interacting aspects 

influencing student perceptions of dynamic school micro-climates— physical 
environment, school practices, and interpersonal relationships (see Figure 1)—

serve as column headings. Authority structures, the fourth category, does not 

appear here because during the interviews, rather than explicitly talking about 

authority structures, the students described the nature of their relationships to 

adults; the rules, norms, and institutional practices governing their school 
experiences; and the interactions between adults. The abstract concept of 

authority structures emerged as relevant while analyzing prominent code co-

occurrences. Code names that emerged during our iterative coding process appear 

bolded in the figure. NSCC’s subcategories are coded in blue as in Figure 1, and 

codes referring to particular school locations are in black. All remaining code 

names referring to social or organizational aspects of the school environments 
appear in red. We share the essence of students’ perspectives on the qualities of 

their physical school environments in the columns, “what works” and “what’s 

wrong.” Participants’ recommendations for the improvement of socio-physical 

school environments are closely connected to their perceptions of what works and 

are therefore integrated into that column. The purpose of the red and blue text in 
these two columns is to emphasize strong consistencies among student 

perspectives. For example, social density and high noise levels are commonly 

perceived as problems, while spaces that offer soft furniture and are characterized 

as calm appear desirable. We also share school practices and their consequences 

for students’ daily school experiences. In accordance with NSCC’s 
conceptualization, in Figure 4 we divide interpersonal relationships by the school 

stakeholder types, specifically students and adults. We referenced our collected 

field notes, behavioral maps, and the content of informal conversations at the 

schools to describe the context for participants’ understandings in the findings 

section and to inform code names.  

 

Findings 
The strongest themes identified related to the schools’ social climates manifested in 

non-classroom spaces during non-instructional times. Themes related to the 

interplay of school architecture, educator approach to authority, and student use of 

space included: (a) Educators’ approaches to authority structures informed 

students’ perceptions of and behaviors in spaces available to them during their 
breaks. (b) When administrative philosophy regarding authority was a collective 

value of the adult stakeholders and well-aligned with the social affordances of the 

spaces, supportive effects of the physical environment on social school climate were 

strong. (c) When administrative philosophy regarding authority was not a collective 

value or well-aligned with the social affordances of the spaces, multifaceted, 

heterogenous school micro-climates existed during breaks.  
 

 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 11 

Figure 4.  Student participants’ perspectives 

 

Student Perspectives: Prairie High School 
Physical Environment School Practices Interpersonal Relationships 

Jack, Sophomore 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Library: quiet place to 

work with low social 

density.  
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Gym: 

should be more 

accessible; maybe 

instead of just sitting in 

the commons, [it would 

be less crowded] if they 

were allowed to go to 

the gym 

Cafeteria: I 

usually avoid the 

cafeteria at lunch—

too loud and 

crowded, unsafe 

during club days  
 

Commons: loud 

and crazy; 

I feel like less bad 

things would 

happen if they’re 

not just all 

together. 
 

Bathrooms: 

crowded, feels 

unsafe at times, 

[there are] boys 

that always are 

looking to mess 

with someone 

No time before class 

to socialize 
 

Short transition 

times [mean I] try to 

get through the halls 

pretty quick because 

I don’t want to be 

late and I never know 

if I’m going to get 

behind someone in 

the hallway; I speed 

walk 
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule: freshmen 

and sophomores eat 

together; I get in line 

as quickly as I can 

because it gets so full 
 

Club day/double 

lunch: Fights have 

broken down during 

lunch because it’s a 

time where you are 

free to do whatever 

By myself, no 

interaction, with peers 

before school 
 

Stand at their 

lockers, other 

students, with their 

friends in the morning, 

can be very rude and 

disrespectful  
 

Talk: quick little 

conversations during 

transition times 
 

Walk while listening to 

music  
 

Sense of physical 

security: instead of 

looking where they are 

going, they are looking 

at their phones; people 

getting pushed and 

shoved, being tripped, 

especially after school  
 

Social support-

students: in response 

to academic stress 

Monitoring in the 

mornings; questioning 

if close to fights  
 

Support for learning 

during study hall 

 

Sophie, Freshman 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Small, repurposed 

spaces: entry lobby to 

auditorium; they 

[adults] can see us 

from office; convenient 

location/ proximity  
 

Choir room: feels 

welcome, a place where 

I belong; that is where 

my home is  
 

Library: quiet, nice 

place to work, soft 

chairs 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS

: 

Commons: provide 

soft chairs 

At vending 

machines: there 

were a lot of people 

going over there and 

getting in trouble, we 

don't want to get in 

trouble for their stuff  
 

Commons: there is 

just floors and 

skinny, hard benches 
 

Hallways: crowded, 

easily overwhelming; 

there’s some weird 

stuff going on in the 

hallway sometimes, 

the things that kids 

yell at each other 

No time to get to my 

bus after school 

because my locker is 

pretty far away; I 

worry about that 
 

Study hall: 

homework, read, talk 

to some of my friends; 

as long as you are 

quiet they don’t really 

care if you are on your 

phone 
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule, 3 or 4 

teachers walking 

around supervising in 

the cafeteria, 2 in the 

commons; sometimes 

we come over there 

and we talk to them 

Connections across 

grades: Talk about 

school with best friend 

[and] two intersecting 

groups, one of 4 one of 5 
 

Humor: dad jokes 
 

Memes  
 

Connectedness/ 

engagement: choir [is] 

great; you are one of us 

and that’s ok. I don’t care 

how different you are, 

you’re just part of the 

family. Volleyball ok; 

English, these people are 

definitely not my friends 
 

Support for learning: 

collaboration; everyone is 

good at something 

Monitoring: they can 

see us in our nook, 

make sure everyone’s 

behaving [and] not 

setting the school on 

fire  
 

Talk: to my teachers, 

miss my middle school 

teacher 
 

Social support-

adults: Important 

adults- choir director is 

an important personal 

connection; 

extracurricular teachers 

are some of the most 

important people I have 

ever met; I could go to 

them with anything 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 12 

Renee, Senior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Outdoor eating area: 

nice to be outside 
 

Small, repurposed 

spaces: auditorium 

entry area for some 

students; little 

backstage area for band 

kids, that’s their group 

that’s their place, quiet/ 

calm Pit in the 

auditorium, my favorite 

spot to hang out soft 

chairs, no teachers  
 

Cafeteria: round tables 

[because] you just can’t 

socialize with each other 

in a line 
 

Commons for outgoing 

students 
 

Library: new, 

whiteboards, welcoming, 

open all the time, low 

social density 
 

PE locker room: where 

your friends are 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Cafeteria: provide 

round tables with loose 

chairs 

Outdoor eating 

area: fights 
 

Cafeteria: long 

linear tables, hard 

to see each other, 

talk and interact. 

Tables with fixed 

seats need to be 

expanded with 

loose chairs  
 

Commons: 

behind the trophy 

case [is a] rowdy 

space 
 

Hallways: Juniors 

hanging out create 

a sophomore 

traffic jam; 

crowded, 

uncomfortable 

Outdoor lunch only 

with supervising 

adult, waiting, 

wasting lunch time  
 

Locker 

assignments 

organized by grade 

level create clogs of 

students from the 

same level 
 

Short transition 

times: [must] plan 

ahead to fit a 

bathroom break, be 

extremely organized 

to have enough time 

for a locker stop, 

otherwise you have 

to carry [your books] 
 

Study hall: 

freshman and 

sophomores have 

assigned classroom 

spaces, have to have 

passes to be in the 

hallways 
 

Club day/double 

lunch: a chance to 

meet friends that are 

less close 
 

Sense of physical 

security; Lunch 

routine + schedule: 

4 teachers walking 

around feels safe 
 

After school adults 

walk around with 

walkie talkie 

By myself—some 

students sit alone 
 

Sit at their lockers 

with two friends in the 

morning  
 

Connections across 

grades: stands and 

talks after lunch; hangs 

out with less-close 

friends on club days; 

meets different 

students in different 

spots in the hallways 

during transitions in 

direct connection to 

schedule classroom 

locations 
 

Games: hacky sack, 

rowdy boys—no need to 

hang with them 
 

Fights in outdoor lunch 

space 

Monitoring: 

cafeteria, outdoor 

space, teachers at 

every corner in the 

hallway  
 

Rules + norms: 

make rules; 

librarian is strict 

about the no-feet-

on-the-furniture rule 

 

 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 13 

Lizzie, Sophomore 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Small, repurposed 

spaces: low social 

density; unfortunately 

taken by other students 
 

Auditorium, associated 

with good memories, 

relaxing, place 

attachment  
 

Classroom with favorite 

teacher; quiet/calm, low 

social density, lower 

light levels  
 

Library, positive place 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Place to be alone, to 

do homework or listen to 

music. There isn’t any 

space to get away from 

the crowds except for 

special classrooms 

Cafeteria: 

crowded, cliquey 

no mingling 
 

Commons and 

adjacent areas: 

crowded, it’s not 

like bad bad— 

there are no fights, 

but too open for 

introverts 
 

Hallways: crowded 

Short transition 

times: to get from 

north end to south 

end of school, math 

to art; struggle; back 

packs are allowed 

which minimizes 

locker time 
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule: 4 or 5 

teachers walking 

around in the 

cafeteria, 2 in the 

commons; they are 

usually a little bit 

more lenient, 

because its lunch 
 

Club day/double 

lunch: special 

privileges for good 

attendance and 

grades; free periods 

as result 

By myself: introverted, 

don’t like people that 

much 
 

Stand at their 

lockers: just a bunch 

of lockers and people 

gathered around those; 

they're just hanging out 

and having 

conversations and 

taking up space 
 

Sit in doorways: 

people get away from 

everyone else 
 

Talk with two friends 

during lunch, about 

school, drama; fights 

(maybe 1 or 2 every 6 

months) with theater 

friends; with friends in 

the library  
 

Games: other students 

play hacky sack 

Monitoring: 

Rules + norms, 

enforcing school rules, 

no fights; they see 

most of what is going 

on or someone will go 

and get them; If 

something is going on 

I talk to a teacher; 

phone rules depend 

entirely on the teacher 
 

Support for 

learning during 

advisory 
 

Social support-

adults: Important 

adults [are] like a 

friend/parental figure; 

librarian is cool 

 

Steven, Senior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Outdoor eating area: 

nice to be outside 
 

Small, repurposed 

space: Little area 

outside the gym, little 

areas close to 

auditorium, for people 

who like seclusion in 

small group  
 

Cafeteria: less crowded 

in the mornings 
 

Library: quiet place to 

study; not a place for 

popular kids  
 

Weight room: where 

friends are 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Bathrooms + Weight 

room: equip with 

cameras [for] safety  
 

Gym:  should be more 

accessible to serve the 

hacky sack community 

that used to be much 

larger 

Hallways: crowded 

in the morning; 

everyone is just 

trying to squeeze 

through to get to 

their class 
 

Lockers and 

Bathrooms: vaping  
 

Bathrooms and 

Weight room: 

excluded from 

proficient 

supervision; people 

go over there to try 

to fight or mess 

around 

Short transition 

times: not enough 

time to be social with 

friends you do not 

share a class with 
 

Study hall: freshman 

do bonding things 

during advisory; no 

structure for advising 

for older students, free 

range 
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule, 2 or 3 

teachers in the 

cafeteria, 2 teachers in 

the commons 
 

Supervision 

practices: teachers 

are in charge of a 

section of the hallway 

Connections across 

grades: Talk; 

students hang out in 

the hallways and in the 

cafeteria to talk to 

their friends or in the 

classrooms; hangs out 

with popular jocks and 

nerdier side geek; 

friendly morning 

conversations; friendly 

start to the day; 

positive vibes, after 

school I go talk to my 

friends about sports 

and drama 
 

Games: card games 

during advisory; hacky 

sack more important 

than eating; its 

social—just hanging 

out 
 

Fights: after people 

start yelling at each 

other 
 

Vaping: other 

students while in the 

cafeteria 

Monitoring: coach 

supervising the weight 

rooms before and after 

school  
 

Sense of physical 

security: adults are 

there to break things 

up; de-escalation 
 

Rules + norms: rule 

enforcement; they 

don’t see most of the 

stuff that happens; 

teachers in the hallway 

to keep an eye on 

things and avoid 

wandering students 
 

Social support-adults 

One important adult: 

contact with coach 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 14 

Student Perspectives: Country High School 

Physical Environment School Practices Interpersonal Relationships 

Elizabeth, Freshman 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Outdoor eating area: 

low social density; 

smaller group; bright and 

nice  
 

Collaboration areas: 

soft chairs, quiet/calm, 

low social density; 

whiteboards good for 

creative brainstorming; 

my friends are walking 

into their math class and 

I’m already there; 

convenient location/ 

proximity  
 

Cafeteria: bright, 

spacious with many 

tables; seats are less 

closely spaced than in 

previous school; calming; 

likes to sit far away from 

the teachers 

 There is time: all my 

classes are close 

together; I have a lot 

of time to talk to other 

people during lunch 
 

I can move where I 

want to during lunch; 

the hallways are not 

so crowded so you can 

move 
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule: I can meet 

upper classmen during 

my school day  
 

Supervision 

routines: teachers 

are there but not so 

close you can freely 

talk 

Connections across 

grades: Talk during 

lunch about school, 

summers, memories, 

homecoming; in 

collaboration area with 3 

friends before school 

about school, dreams, 

weekends, teachers 
 

Walk with friends during 

transitions or alone 
 

Humor with my brother’s 

friends 

Support for learning 

before school 
 

Professional 

relationships in 

collaboration areas 

 

Mark, Senior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Collaboration areas: 

soft chairs with awning, 

location for AP and online 

independent study 

students; becomes 

convenient; 

location/proximity to 

content-specific teachers 
 

Cafeteria, open, 

spacious, high ceilings; 

low social density 
 

Library: Adequate 

resources + materials, 

printer; quiet/calm 

 There is time during 

lunch oh yeah, 

definitely; most of the 

time everyone is done 

eating in 15 or 20 

minutes and then gets 

to chill out for the last 

20 minutes 
 

I can move [in the] 

cafeteria during lunch; 

I have room to move 

and breathe 
 

Short transition 

times: just enough to 

get to the next 

classroom unless its 

close  
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule: some of us 

had first lunch but this 

year we pretty much 

all had the same 

lunch; we got to get a 

table together 

Talk: nobody wants to go 

sit in the classroom, so 

everybody (4-8 friends) 

comes into collaboration 

areas; [we talk about] last 

night, weekend, sports; 

hanging out with a friend is 

a good relief to rigorous 

classes; friends from AP 

classes and athletes; that’s 

one of the best things 

about this school—not a 

big separation between the 

jocks and the nerds; third 

group of friends is less 

homogenous during lunch 

in cafeteria; small, tight-

knit communities are good 
 

Games on phones 
 

Social media, social 

support: conversations 

about college decisions 
 

Social media: drama, 

sports- communication 

management  
 

Sense of social-

emotional security: 

some scream and shout in 

the hallway but it’s never a 

real concern 

Sense of physical 

security: 

teacher/coach told us 

to be on the lookout 

for some strange-

looking person; I’ve 

never felt worried to 

come to school 
 

Support for 

learning: in 

collaboration area, all 

the science teachers 

are there, and you can 

ask them questions 

concerning the online 

classes 
 

Social support-

adults: Earned 

trust: we really have 

the freedom because 

at this point, we’re 

trusted enough, the 

faculty here trust us 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 15 

Juna, Senior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Outdoor eating area: 

speech privacy from 

student groups at other 

tables 
 

Collaboration areas  
 

Cafeteria: tables along 

spatial boundary rather 

than central locations 
 

Library: should be 

bigger; quiet/calm, yet 

social; convenient 

location/proximity 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Appeal of facility  
 

Colors should be more 

expressive— orange, 

yellow and red  
 

Display students’ 

artwork; Decorate 

classrooms; students 

need to do this; add 

plants  
 

Classrooms owned and 

controlled by students; 

students stay there all 

day; rearrange the 

movable furniture 

regularly to get to know 

all students 

Library: too 

small  
 

Appeal of 

facility: 

depressing colors 

Short transition 

times: at home in 

Europe I have a lot 

more time to walk to 

class and talk to my 

friends. Here I just 

feel like I am always 

rushed. 
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule: my friends 

from cross country all 

have the same lunch 

as I do 
 

Rules + norms 

Library rules: not so 

very strict, we can 

have food, not much 

supervision 

Talk: in cafeteria in the 

morning with 

boyfriend, best friend 

and her boyfriend; 

brief meeting to talk to 

friends in science 

collab; 8-12 people in 

different constellations 

—nerds and jocks; 

there is never a 

moment where we’re 

not talking; trying to 

maximize the time in 

the hallways; 

important ongoing 

conversations. 
 

Walk each other to 

class in the morning 
 

Social support-

students: Respect 

for diversity, 

expressive group 

(LGBTQ) who likes 

their speech privacy to 

discuss topics that are 

comfortable only with 

friends; me and my 

friends don’t fit in very 

well; hard to be new  
 

Support for 

Learning: 

collaboration, we help 

each other with 

homework in the 

mornings in the 

cafeteria 

Surveillance: 

through teachers at 

classroom door; they 

keep their eyes on 

you. I feel like I 

cannot be my 

expressive self  
 

Professional 

relationships in 

collaboration areas; 

that’s better than 

when they just watch 

you 

 

Mai, Junior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Collaboration areas: 

convenient location/ 

proximity; high chairs, 

soft chairs; relaxed, low 

social density 
 

Cafeteria-Appeal of 

facility: it’s pretty nice, 

table away from back 

entrance for thermal 

comfort  
 

Classroom of one 

important adult; 

whiteboards 

 There is time to play 

games after eating 

during the lunch break 

Talk with best friend 

about mentor kids, 

English class  
 

Games: card games 

during lunch; stress 

reliever 

Monitoring: [in] 

cafeteria, just so we’re 

not doing anything 

wrong 
 

Social support-

adults- One 

important adult; we 

talk to him 

 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 16 

Kristopher, Sophomore 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Outdoor eating area: 

smaller  
 

Collaboration areas:  

soft chairs, supports 

focused individual work 
 

Library: 

soft chairs, quiet/calm; 

it makes me relax and 

want to actually do my 

work 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Gym should be more 

accessible to practice 

basketball 

Library: too small 
 

Gym: not 

accessible enough 

There is time: 

small talk and the 

walk to class the 

school is kind of 

small  
 

Lunch routine + 

schedule: two of 

my friends I can 

have lunch with; the 

third is on a 

different schedule 
 

Rules + norms: 

rules are good; 

everything is just 

easier here; Library 

rules: nobody is 

there to tell me 

what to do; quiet 

goes without saying; 

No running in the 

hallways 

By myself, shooting 

hoops in the morning 
 

Talk while sitting with 

my 4 friends in the 

cafeteria about sports; 

nice escape during 

lunch 
 

Walk to class while 

talking, listening to 

music 
 

Social support-

students: with 

girlfriend problems, 

positive contact with 

the weird kids 
 

Social + civic 

learning: freshman 

play around, throw 

food, are noisy; we 

had to take them 

under our wing, now 

they sit with us 
 

Support for 

learning: be 

respectful and quiet in 

library when others 

are working  
 

Social media: to 

connect with friends, 

drama; moves fast 

across the community, 

everybody just talks 
 

Respect for 

diversity: it does not 

take much to feel 

different than 

everyone else here 

Monitoring: in the 

hallways; not 

effective, you stop 

doing it while they 

are looking 
 

Sense of physical 

security: teachers 

prevented a potential 

fight 
 

Social support-

adults: Earned 

trust—you got to be 

mature about it and 

get your stuff done; I 

like the teachers 

better here, they 

actually care; they 

want to help you 
 

Professional 

relationships: you 

see them talking to 

each other in 

collaboration areas 

 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 17 

Serina, Senior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Collaboration areas: 

convenient 

location/proximity to 

classroom; 

opportunities for 

incidental social 

encounter  
 

Cafeteria: tables 

along spatial 

boundary; loose chairs 

to be able to adjust to 

a variety of group 

sizes; convenient 

table location and 

proximities, sight 

lines, speech privacy 
 

Library, soft chairs, 

quiet/ calm; low social 

density; casual/ Less 

formal; comfortable 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Gym: should be more 

accessible, boys like to 

use it 
 

Natural light to take 

pictures 

Collaboration 

areas: no speech 

privacy  
 

Cafeteria: too 

cold  
 

Classrooms, too 

loud and crowded 

to do group work 
 

Library: too cold 

There is time; I 

never feel rushed 

during lunch 
 

I can move to talk 

to my little brother 

during lunch, avoid 

sharing space with 

students I don’t like 
 

Short transition 

times: you don't 

really have time to 

do anything else. So 

the extra time that 

we do have is really 

nice 
 

Study hall: assigned 

classrooms and then 

I can branch off; club 

meetings; homework 

in the library—40/60 

learning and 

socializing; rearrange 

the furniture in 

collaboration area; 

you play on your 

phone and you do 

your homework; 

relaxing, chill; food; 

50/50 learning and 

socializing; when 

studying or working 

needs to be done, we 

always do 
 

Social media: a lot 

of that happens when 

you are walking from 

class to class  
 

Rules + norms: 

Library rules—not so 

strict; sitting on the 

floor; self- check-out 

when the librarian is 

absent 

Connections across 

grades: Talk about 

homework, love lives, 

extracurricular 

involvement, college 

applications, politics; 
 

Walk to class and text  
 

Dance in collaboration 

areas  
 

Humor 
 

Games: quizzes on 

BuzzFeed; trivia 
 

Read 
 

Social support-

students: friend is 

moving to Brazil  
 

Support for 

learning: 40/60 

learning and 

socializing; 

collaboration; study 

for tests in the 

morning in the library 
 

Social media: photos 

of friends using 

bathroom mirrors; 

posting on Snapchat, 

Instagram, record 

goofy stuff; if there is 

going to be a fight it is 

going to be on 

Snapchat; gossip, 

drama; that's like 

another way to be 

connected with people 

in the school without 

necessarily meeting up 

with them in these 

spaces; our phone is 

our own little 

collaboration area 

where we socialize as 

well as lip sync battle 
 

Incidental social 

encounter between 

teenagers in the 

collaboration zones 
 

Fights: it’s always the 

boys; they just do it to 

get to go home 

Earned trust: self-

check-out in the 

library; extra time to 

collaborate outside of 

the classroom is 

really nice  
 

Incidental social 

encounter between 

adults and teenagers 

in collaboration areas 

 

  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 18 

Megan, Senior 

What Works What’s Wrong Consequences Students Adults 
Collaboration areas: 

high table if soft chairs 

are already taken 
 

Cafeteria: large tables 

not fully occupied allow 

you to do homework 

there during lunch; 

very nice and spread 

out, relaxed, 

refreshing; quiet/calm; 

tables along spatial 

boundary; speech 

privacy 
 

Classroom of one 

important adult; 

whiteboards 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Make a variety of 

settings available: 

depends on the mood— 

sometimes I want to be 

in the middle, I want to 

be the cool kid. And 

other times I just kind 

of want to sit against 

the wall, chill for a bit. 

And then a lot of the 

times I go wherever is 

closest to the 

whiteboard. 

Collaboration 

area: math and 

science; too many 

tables and chairs 

set up 
 

Cafeteria: 

inconvenient 

central location; 

distracting cross-

traffic during 

lunch; tables close 

to trash 
 

We used to [get 

together] all 

around lockers; 

nobody touches 

them as much—

why do you think 

that is? 

I can move where I 

want to during lunch, 

so I can talk to all 

my friends 
 

Short transition 

times: not enough 

time to use the 

locker and deliver 

papers to clubs, 

therefore I carry my 

books around 

Connections across 

grades: Talk when I 

run into friends in the 

hallway, during lunch, 

[about the] night 

before, plans for the 

future, club activities 
 

Games: card games 

occasionally before 

class and during lunch; 

texting, checking 

phones; lunch is 

probably one of my 

most relaxed times  
 

Dance: just dance on 

Wii after school 
 

Draw during free 

period  
 

Social + civic 

learning, 

Connectedness/ 

engagement: its 

technically not for 

school, [but] we 

prepare girls for 

leadership roles in the 

local area. I have been 

part of it for 4 years  
 

Support for learning: 

60/40 learning and 

socializing; if they are 

trying to learn and be 

quiet, I stay clear of the 

library, I don’t even 

know their names, but 

we help each other  
 

Social media: small 

community; quickly 

everyone knows what 

is going on; no fights 

but I’ll block you on 

Snapchat; some are 

very public persons 

others are private 

Sense of physical 

security: 

Monitoring/ 

surveillance during 

transitional times at 

their classroom doors 

to make sure no one 

gets in fights; 

instances where that 

has been helpful; I 

am being watched, 

[because] my sister 

misbehaved last year 
 

Support for 

learning: math 

teachers help with 

homework and with 

prep for tests in 

collaboration areas 
 

Social support-

adults: Important 

adults: long term 

relationships with 

math and science 

teachers; they are so 

much fun; they keep 

things uplifting 

because high school 

is stressful; they try 

to give us a break 

after school, so we 

associate it in a 

positive way; I think 

the teachers really 

do try to keep us 

together 

 
  



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 19 

Country High 

Like many contemporary school buildings, Country High was designed to support 
student ownership of educational spaces. Hallways were wide and curved. Replacing 

lockers—traditional centers of casual interactions between students in high school 

buildings—were flexible, open, informal learning spaces referred to as “collaboration 

areas” (see Figure 2, above). These collaboration areas were located between 

clusters of classrooms as connected extensions of hallways, intended as informal 
gathering spaces instead of pure circulation spaces. Students at Country High 

experienced less-defined boundaries between the dichotomic “classrooms as 

learning spaces” and “non-classroom spaces as socialization spaces” typically 

experienced in older school buildings. 

 

Displaying varied ceiling heights, the building was designed to control noise levels, 
promote student cooperation (Read, Sugawara & Brandt,1999), and offer sufficient 

lighting (Earthman, 2004). To control noise, interiors of County High were 

materialized using acoustically absorptive materials instead of relying solely on 

acoustical ceiling tiles. Light fixtures created different brightness levels throughout 

these spaces. 
 

With mostly carpeted floors and varied furniture arrangements, spaces at Country 

High were usually less densely occupied and noticeably quieter than spaces at 

Prairie High. Interiors characterized by high social density (Cash, Bradshaw & Leaf, 

2015; Maxwell, 2003) and noise levels (Boman & Enmarker, 2004) have been 
found to generate environmental stress (Ahrentzen, Jue, Skorpanich, & Evans, 

1984; Evans & Cohen, 1987; Gatersleben & Griffin, 2017). Students at Country 

High identified their favorite places by choosing the most comfortable furniture 

arrangements available in collaboration areas at locations most convenient to their 

peer groups. Most popular was furniture that was soft, comfortable, and residential 

in nature. Convenient locations were determined by evaluating relevant proximities 
to previous or upcoming classes of peer group members. If friends were coming 

from classrooms on opposite ends of the building, for example, they met in the 

cafeteria or the library, both located at the school’s center. Students sometimes 

chose to hang out in collaboration areas close to specific teachers’ classrooms so 

group members could easily seek additional academic support. We did not observe 
student competition for desirable spots, suggesting temporary ownership of 

locations by different peer groups (Delaney, 2005). 

 

Collaboration areas were usually characterized by low social density. Rare 

exceptions to low social density occurred during occasional meetings of larger 
student clubs. The collaboration areas served as architectural public squares 

(Hertzberger, 2002) where one might regularly claim a favorite bench together with 

a coworker during lunch breaks without being upset or surprised if someone else 

used it at different times. 

 
Mark, a senior, described what he understood as the core characteristic of the 

existing authority structure, responsible for granting his group autonomy to use 

non-classroom spaces freely for both academic and social activities: 

 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 20 

 …in the science collab, there's like seven or eight of us that hang out down 

there usually because everybody that's down there, it's all seniors…. So at 
that place, it's just basically if you have homework, you do your homework. 

If you don't, you just sit and hang out for 45 minutes and just do whatever; 

talk. Sometimes we play games on our phones…. I honestly, I think we 

really have the freedom because at this point, we're trusted enough, and 

the faculty here trust us enough that they don't really care where we're at.  
 

Similarly, Serina, another senior, described why she valued her access to 

collaboration areas as quiet and spacious learning settings, nesting academic and 

social behaviors in a broad culture of trust, supported by educators: 

 

[W]hen you're in your classroom, you're just confined to the people that are 
in that class with you. And in classes, sometimes [teachers] let us go out into 

the collaboration areas to work if we have a project or something. Usually, 

most people want to do that, and they'll branch off on their own. And that's 

nice just because you're more separated. So, it's easier to work in smaller 

groups. Whereas, like if you were stuck in the classroom, it's really loud and 
crowded and you can hear everybody and there's not room. So, it's nice to 

leave for more room. 

 

Both Mark and Serina described spaces as less dichotomic classroom versus non-

classroom spaces than traditional school structures imply. Supporting the melding 
of classroom and non-classroom space and times were the purposefully designed 

collaboration areas. Only with the support and trust of educators—gatekeepers of 

these spaces—did students have access to these areas. In each description, 

educators trusted students to utilize these spaces. Without this trust, students 

would not have had deep social access to these spaces except during short 

transition times. 
 

Administrators at Country High relied on personal familiarity with students to inform 

their relationships. Rewarded with “earned freedom,” students meeting behavioral 

expectations used these spaces as architecturally intended. Students perceived as 

needing more structure remained in closer proximity to their teachers. In describing 
his approach to collaboration spaces, Principal Weiger emphasized the importance 

of trust and expectation of responsible, autonomous activity:  

 

It's nice to be out there, but it's not a right. It's a privilege to be out there. 

So, utilize it properly. And that's what my point was to [students]. And I 
went down to the [collaboration space] in the next couple of days and they 

were fine. I haven't been down there this week, so I may check in. But for 

the most part they're seniors. They know what they're supposed to be 

doing. We've built enough of a relationship that they're going to, most of the 

time, do what you ask them to do. 
 

Viewing access to these spaces by students as a privilege, Principal Weiger relied on 

a culture of trust and unwritten expectations for student behavior in these spaces. 

That “they know what they’re supposed to be doing” reflects norms balancing 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 21 

academic focus, social interaction, and an informality of rules by which students 

abided. Without trust in student adherence to these broad norms and standards, 
Principal Weiger and his team would have restricted student access to these spaces. 

The architectural design of Country High, with its intent to support student 

collaboration and social interaction, was well aligned with an educator-influenced 

culture of trust. 

 
Prairie High 

Materialized with hard and acoustically reflective surfaces, hallways at Prairie High 

were narrow, designed solely for controlled circulation of students (Figure 3). 

Typical for schools created during the school building boom of the late 1960s and 

1970s, narrow hallways discouraged social interactions (Osmond, 1957). In some 

schools, narrow hallways and dense layouts of classrooms enable enforcement of 
extreme disciplinary routines intended to shape desired student behavior 

(Altenburger, 2019). Students gathering in hallways created noisy “clogs,” 

hindering movement of students between classrooms. The “commons,” the large 

social center adjacent to the cafeteria lacked spatial variation, varying ceiling 

heights, or light levels, had no acoustically absorptive materials, and offered no 
furniture arrangements to support relaxed social interaction between students. 

 

Built before diversified, flexible, and student-centered learning practices were 

commonplace, the design of Prairie High emphasized a dichotomic view of places 

throughout the school, designed as either teacher-centered classrooms or non-
learning spaces for movement between classrooms. Interior spaces of the school 

building afforded little support for student socialization. The commons offered 

minimal bench seating along part of its periphery as the only spaces intended as 

locations for social interactions. 

 

Students perceiving the commons environment as too loud or too crowded 
responded to the socio-spatial characteristics of their school building by repurposing 

small internal entry areas and discrete hallways in proximity to the spaces 

associated with their favorite extracurricular activities into group territories for their 

friends (Delaney, 2005). Sitting on the floor in doorways, congregating in small 

“hacky-sack” circles behind a freestanding trophy case, or standing on the 
periphery of the commons, students turned spaces designed as transitory locations 

into purposeful social places. 

 

Renee described one of these socio-physical pockets. Belonging to a social group 

that had navigated the responsible use of a space not intentionally designed for 
student interaction, this space was largely free of adult supervision. These “band 

kids” had repurposed a small hallway connecting a music room and the school 

auditorium as break space: 

 

[T]hat little backstage. Yeah. Those people, if they're not doing anything bad, 
they're just like, that's their group. They're band kids, so they, like, socialize 

in that area and that's just their place where they don't feel it's so loud. 

They're involved with each other. Most of them are dating each other. So, it 

is like, ‘Oh, we're together.’ It's not like they're vaping or anything. 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 22 

 

Sophie, a freshman, described how her peer group interpreted the socio-physical 
environment of a conventional break space they had initially occupied as 

increasingly problematic and explained that they adjusted by choosing a less 

densely occupied and quieter space that better suited their needs: 

 

Well, we used to sit by the vending machines, but there were a lot of people 
going over there and getting in trouble and we didn’t want to get in trouble 

for stuff they're doing. So, then we moved to a quieter area and that's where 

we sat ever since. 

 

Renee and Sophie described the adaptation of small spaces designed for transition 

rather than extended occupation as alternatives to large and undefined break 
spaces in a school characterized by a dichotomic distinction between academic and 

non-academic spaces. By dichotomizing spaces for learning and spaces for social 

interaction, the school building did not intentionally support group size variety or 

consider sensitivities to noise levels during non-instructional times. Importantly, 

leadership at Prairie High supported the retreat of students from the uncomfortable 
and noisy commons area to repurposed, smaller transition spaces during breaks. 

 

Both student quotes illustrate what the principal described as his core expectation 

for students: that they “self-advocated” their time and behavior in the non-

classroom spaces. 
 

Leadership teams employing an authority structure emphasizing more control over 

student behavior would probably have inhibited students’ repurposing of transitional 

nooks into social spaces. Principal Novak described the importance of connecting 

with students during lunch but respected their prevailing need and desire for peer 

interactions. He thought of lunch time as an opportunity for students to socialize, 
relatively free from adult intervention: “I like to move around and talk to students, 

but sometimes during lunch I feel like I'm intruding on their conversations. I might 

move around but I might also hang back and not say anything to them.” 

 

Supporting students’ enactment of the administrative expectation of self-advocacy 
was an underlying assumption that students could be trusted to decide for 

themselves which spaces best suited their needs. At the same time, Principal Novak 

was aware of trust violations in repurposed transitional spaces located beyond the 

reach of casual supervision: 

 
[T]he music hallway's always been a hallway where our music students 

congregate. They’re great kids. There's some spaces around [the auditorium] 

where they like to hide. And so that's an area that is a little concerning to 

me. I always worry about the locker room areas because kids don't respect 

those areas very well. We have the most vandalism in those areas 
throughout the day. Those areas are of concern to me. 

 

Principal Novak identified several spaces as worrisome because of their hidden 

nature and lack of supervision. Despite this, he neither considered global 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 23 

restrictions to these spaces nor did he adjust school routines toward a more 

intrusive approach to supervision. Detected problematic behaviors were addressed 
individually by supervisors employing their understanding of what qualified as 

unacceptable student behavior. The principal reported that some teachers preferred 

more clearly defined institutional rules and behavioral expectations and, by 

extension, less autonomy for students in these spaces. As a result of interactions 

between the aspects of these socio-physical environments, small, repurposed 
transitional spaces were both important social spaces for students and potentially 

problematic locations. Student access to these spaces was practiced as a right in a 

physical environment offering few alternatives to the large, loud, and crowded 

break spaces. The architectural design of Prairie High’s transitional spaces, not 

designed to be locations for extended social interaction and offering limited 

opportunities for casual supervision, was not well-aligned with administrative 
philosophies and practices of student self-advocacy and autonomy. The strongly 

defined boundaries of these spaces and their hidden nature hindered the casual and 

informal style of supervision, leaving the environment and their occupants 

occasionally unprotected from potential harm. 

 

Discussion 
At Country High, we found a close person–environment fit (Caplan & Van Harrison, 

1993; Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006) between the 

interacting aspects of the school environment that influenced students’ perceptions 

of the social affordances (Gibson, 1979) of spaces designed and intended for their 

use during breaks and informal learning activities. 

 
Administrator philosophies were shared with other adult stakeholders, allowing a 

common foundation for informing relationships between adults and students. 

Behavioral expectations were communicated clearly and consistently (Galton et al., 

1999) but not enforced through overly controlled routines that would have 

suggested a lack of teacher–student trust (Mullin, 2014). Instead, the depth of trust 
and autonomy granted to students had been sustained over time in response to a 

student peer culture generally perceived as responsible. In this community, a 

positive school climate had grown, particularly for seniors, over the course of 

multiple school years. The nature of school practices, such as schedules and 

everyday routines governing the relationship between physical spaces and social 
behaviors within, were aligned with authority structures. They relied on noticeable 

levels of “earned trust” and rewarded students with “earned freedom.” The 

characteristics of the school’s architecture complemented specific social and 

organizational contexts endorsed by administrators. Architectural design and 

educator approaches to authority worked in tandem to support students’ use of 

these spaces. Stakeholders at Country High embraced the design of collaborative 
spaces to expand opportunities for academic and social activities in these spaces. 

 

At Prairie High, incongruence existed between the interacting physical and 

philosophical aspects of the school environment that influenced students’ 

perceptions of the social affordances of traditionally designed break spaces. 
Because the principal’s philosophy of self-advocacy was not universally shared by 

other adult stakeholders, it was weakened as a foundation for informing student–



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 24 

teacher interactions. Wide-ranging behavioral expectations among adults led to 

uneven communication and, combined with often non-invasive and casual 
supervision, created a variety of school microclimates in these spaces. Extroverted 

students appeared to enjoy the cafeteria and commons spaces, but those more 

vulnerable to the negative effects on health and mood of chronic environmental 

noise outside their control (Belojevic, Slepcevic & Jakovljevic, 2001; Haines, 

Stansfeld, Job, Berglund, & Head, 2001; Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003), avoided 
them. Identifying less noisy and smaller spaces, groups of likeminded students 

repurposed small and clearly defined non-classroom spaces available to them. 

These spaces were quieter, easier to navigate socially, and better suited to group or 

individual needs. 

 

Adults reported desires to support student autonomy during break times but 
worries about the hidden nature of small spaces used as alternatives to the 

commons and cafeteria. Adults’ desires informed organizational approaches and 

individual supervision styles. There was, however, incongruence between the 

physical environment designed for control of behavior and the principal’s philosophy 

and practice of student autonomy. Prairie High’s building was not well-suited to 
either the envisioned relaxed student culture during breaks or to informal, extra- 

classroom learning activities. Educator approaches to authority structures led to 

opportunities for student access to unconventional spaces during their breaks, but 

the architectural design was not conducive to introverted or vulnerable students. 

Educators at Prairie High worried that expanded opportunities for student social 
encounters could lead to safety risks in this building characterized by designed, 

dichotomic academic/non-academic spaces. 

 

Principals at each school emphasized awareness of students’ needs to have 

substantial opportunities to socially connect. Prairie High and Country High were, 

however, two very different places (Cresswell, 2004). While we found similar goals 
for responsible student behavior and positive school climates, the spatial qualities 

and rules that informed each school’s daily practices varied substantially. Each 

principal exhibited ambition beyond enforcement of rule-obedient student behavior. 

Instead, each tried to encourage the practice of responsible social decision-making 

processes to prepare students for life in less-controlled environments. Working with 
the affordances or within the confines of their physical environments, students 

responded to the philosophies of school administrators by adapting their own social 

processes. 

 

Limitations 
Several limitations to this study need to be pointed out. That both communities 

were demographically similar was a purposeful choice as we worked to juxtapose 
varied school building types with relatively similar populations. The school 

communities were homogeneously white, limiting generalizability to schools with 

populations with greater diversity. Although typically major factors in student 

socialization patterns, race, ethnicity, and culture (Joyner & Kao, 2000) were not 

described by participants as major considerations when interacting in these 
environments. While the findings of this study are thus not generalizable to every 

school community, the themes identified may serve as valuable starting points for 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 25 

educators who wish to explore their non-academic environments and the social 

processes nested therein. Indeed, recommendations described below may be 
broadly implemented in schools of widely diverse student populations.  

 

Second, while we selected the students participating in this study because of their 

diverse positioning within the school, students in their senior year in high school 

were overrepresented. This certainly affected our findings since educators 
commonly think of juniors and seniors as more mature than sophomores or 

freshmen. This second limitation does, however, allow the interesting and important 

dimension of time on student perceptions of their socio-physical school 

environments to be captured within these cases.  

 

Finally, despite the small participant size, we argue the themes serve as starting 
points for consideration for readers in a wide variety of school settings. 

 

Conclusion 
This study took place during what may be considered a transitional phase in the 

interplay between school building characteristics and local authority structures. 

Most adult stakeholders in this study had developed their understanding of school 
authority structures informed by school buildings designed for control and within a 

national school culture emphasizing behavioral control of students perceived as 

untrustworthy. Educators were familiar with continuity between school designs 

promoting classroom/non-classroom dichotomies and authority structures 

characterized by surveillance and control. Recent trends in school building designs 

promoting collaboration and trust conflict with these established authority 
structures. During this study, we found educators of a new mindset concerning 

appropriate authority structures for their educational institutions. These educators 

thought of trust and space for freer social encounters between students as a way to 

prepare them for future, less controlled settings. The principals who inhabited 

different physical school environments either struggled against the rigid boundaries 
and loud and crowded spaces or enjoyed the support of a flexible yet spatially 

defined, comfortable, and spacious learning environment. 

 

To grow stakeholder awareness of the barriers traditional school buildings create, 

and to deepen support for long-term investment in modernized school facilities, we 
suggest listening to those most directly affected but least often consulted at school 

(Cook-Sather, 2002): marginalized or vulnerable students (Flutter, 2006; Ghaziani, 

2012). The students with whom we talked either appreciated or longed for non-

classroom environments characterized by increased environmental comfort 

(Bernardi & Kowaltowski, 2006) and minimized environmental stressors as places 

to foster peer relationships. They wanted comfortable furniture arrangements to 
support different group sizes in less crowded and less noisy spaces. We suggest 

administrators start by adjusting school practices until they achieve break times 

and spaces characterized by lower social density. We further recommend identifying 

spaces to be reallocated as student-owned spaces during non-instructional times at 

strategic locations near adult-owned spaces or close to the schools’ centers. This 
can be done, for example, by reconceptualizing school libraries as flexible learning 

centers where students are welcome, whether they read or not (Altenburger, 2021). 



Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 26 

 

A concrete adjustment to physical school environments worth consideration is the 
removal of lockers from the hallways to afford more space during transition times. 

The result may be enhanced ability for students to congregate with friends 

without obstructing the necessary flow between classrooms. We recommend the 

addition of soft, sound-absorbing materials, such as carpets, to dampen the 

acoustics and minimize noise pollution in non-classroom spaces. Perhaps the most 
easily attainable adjustment we suggest is the addition of comfortable, diverse 

furniture for use in commons areas. Prior to renovations, educators may take 

time to consider the school climate they envision, the authority structures they 

have, their shared ideas about the appropriate level of student autonomy, and the 

current alignments between these aspects and their daily routines, for “If the 

good life does not begin at school, few children will believe that school is meant to 
help them reach the good life” (Bettelheim, 1979, p. 212). Though not every 

traditional school building will be replaced with one better suited for student 

interaction, the changes suggested may make non-academic spaces more 

conducive to positive student social interaction and improved microclimates, even 

in traditional school buildings. 
 

 

Elke Altenburger, Ph.D., is an assistant professor for interior design at Illinois 

State University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Missouri and has a 

degree as Graduate Engineer of Interior Architecture from the University of 
Applied Science in Düsseldorf, Germany. She practiced interior design in large 

architectural teams in Europe and the United States. Her portfolio includes mostly 

cultural buildings and projects of higher education. Her research interests revolve 

around student perspectives on informal learning environments in public 

secondary schools. 

 
Benjamin Wellenreiter, Ed.D., is an assistant professor in the School of 

Teaching and Learning at Illinois State University. Ben teaches courses in middle-

level social studies pedagogy, content-area literacy, middle-school teaching 

methods, and classroom management. His research interests include adolescent 

socialization in non-academic school environments and school authority structures. 
He has recent publications in The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational 

Strategies, Issues, and Ideas and Middle School Journal. 

 

 

References 
 

Ahrentzen, S., Jue, G. M., Skorpanich, M. A., & Evans, G. W. (1984). School 
environments and stress. In G. W. Evans (Ed.), Environmental stress (pp. 

224-255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

 

Altenburger, E. (2019). A long-lasting disciplinary morning ritual: The “wild walk” at 

Sendak Middle School. Children, Youth and Environments, 29(1), 116-126. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi  

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 27 

Altenburger, E. (2021). Rural high school libraries: Places prone to promote positive 

school climates. Journal of Learning Spaces, 10(1), 1-14.  
http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1980 

 

Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, 

and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249-270. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059003249 
 

Arum, R., & Ford, K. (2012). How other countries “do discipline.” Educational 

Leadership, 70(2), 56-60. 

 

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Behre, W. J. (1999). Unowned places and times: Maps 

and interviews about violence in high schools. American Educational 
Research Journal, 36(1), 3-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163504 

 

Belojevic, G., Slepcevic, V., & Jakovljevic, B. (2001). Mental performance in noise: 

The role of introversion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(2), 209-

213. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0188 
 

Bernardi, N., & Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. (2006). Environmental comfort in school 

buildings. Environment and Behavior, 38(2), 155-172. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505275307 

 
Bettelheim, B. (1979). Surviving and other essays. Vintage Books, A Division of 

Random House. 

 

Boman, E., & Enmarker, I. (2004). Factors affecting pupils’ noise annoyance in 

schools: The building and testing of models. Environment and Behavior, 

36(2), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503256644 
 

Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some 

history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 

49(4), 253-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01192.x 

 
Cash, A. H., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2015). Observations of student behavior 

in nonclassroom settings: A multilevel examination of location, density, and 

school context. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5-6), 597-627. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614562835 

 
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, 

and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031004003 

 

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 
 

Daniels, H., Stables, A., Tse, H. M., & Cox, S. (2019). School design matters: How 

school design relates to the practice and experience of schooling. Routledge 

Taylor and Francis Group. 

http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1980
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543059003249
https://doi.org/10.2307/1163504
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0188
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916505275307
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916503256644
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01192.x
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0272431614562835
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031004003


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 28 

Davidovitch, N., & Casakin, H. (2015). Academic social climate—A key aspect in 

architectural studies. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 34(2), 
237-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12009 

 

Delaney, D. (2005). Territory, a short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 

 

Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments. New 
York: Architectural Press.  

 

Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. 

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239605533_Prioritization_of_31_c

riteria_for_school_building_adequacy 
 

Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. 

(2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to 

the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 91(4), 802-827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802 
 

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. 

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

 

Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography 'ethnographic'? Anthropology 
& Education Quarterly, 15(1), 51-66. 

https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1984.15.1.05x1472p 

 

Evans, G. W., & Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. In D. Stokols & I. Altman 

(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 571-610). New York: 

Wiley. 
 

Flutter, J. (2006). “This place could help you learn”: Student participation in 

creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58(2), 183-193. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600584116 

 
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage 

handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

 

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the 
primary classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge. 

 

Gatersleben B., & Griffin, I. (2017). Environmental stress. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, 

& O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of 

life research (pp. 469-485). Springer. 
 

Ghaziani, R. (2012). An emerging framework for school design based on children's 

voices. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 125-144. 

https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0125 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12009
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239605533_Prioritization_of_31_criteria_for_school_building_adequacy
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239605533_Prioritization_of_31_criteria_for_school_building_adequacy
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239605533_Prioritization_of_31_criteria_for_school_building_adequacy
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802
https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1984.15.1.05x1472p
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600584116
https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0125


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 29 

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances. Psychology Press. 

 
Gislason, N. (2009). Mapping school design: A qualitative study of the relations 

among facilities design, curriculum delivery, and school climate. Journal of 

Environmental Education, 40(4), 17-34. 

https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.4.17-34 

 
Gottfredson, D. C., Fink, C. M., & Graham, N. (1994). Grade retention and problem 

behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 761-784. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1163394 

 

Green, J. L., Skukauskaite, A., & Baker, W. D. (2011). Ethnography as 

epistemology. In J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, & L. Hedges (Eds.), Research 
methods and methodologies in education (pp. 309-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

 

Gross, L. A. (2004). Flat bottoms and tied hands: An exploration of a middle 

school's spatiotemporal order (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University 
of Missouri-Columbia. 

 

Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for 

place- conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 

619-654. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003619 
 

Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. 

Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 309-324. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003 

 

Haines, M. M., Stansfeld, S. A., Job, R. F. S., Berglund, B., & Head, J. (2001). 
Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and 

cognitive performance in school children. Psychological Medicine, 31(2), 265-

277. DOI: 10.1017/s0033291701003282 

 

Hertzberger, H. (2002). Articulations. Prestel. 
 

Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of 

school environments: A literature review. Design Council. 

 

Hope, A. (2009). CCTV, school surveillance and social control. British Educational 
Research Journal, 35(6), 891-907. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902834233 

 

Johnson, T., Boyden, J. E., & Pittz, W. J. (2001). Racial profiling and punishment in 

U.S. public schools: How zero tolerance policies and high stakes testing 
subvert academic excellence and racial equity. 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED461921 

 

Joyner, K., & Kao, G. (2000). School racial composition and adolescent racial 

https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.4.17-34
https://doi.org/10.2307/1163394
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312040003619
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X032004003
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291701003282
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902834233
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED461921


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 30 

homophily. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 810-825. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42864005 
 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. In Naturalistic 

inquiry (pp. 289-331). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

 

Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Richardson, M. (2011). “Building schools for the future”: 
Reflections on a new social architecture. Journal of Education Policy, 26(3), 

341-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.513741 

 

Manca, S., Cerina, V., Tobia, V., Sacchi, S., & Fornara, F. (2020). The effect of 

school design on users’ responses: A systematic review (2008–2017). 

Sustainability, 12(8), 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083453 
 

Markus, T. A. (1993). Buildings and power: Freedom and control in the origin of 

modern building types. New York: Routledge. 

 

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd 
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. 

 

Maxwell, L. E. (2000). A safe and welcoming school: What students, teachers, and 

parents think. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(4), 271-

282. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030548 
 

Maxwell, L. E. (2003). Home and school density effects on elementary school 

children. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 566-578. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035004007 

 

Maxwell, L. E., & Schechtman, S. L. (2012). The role of objective and perceived 
school building quality in student academic outcomes and self-perception. 

Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 23-51. 

https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0023 

 

Mullin, A. (2014). Children, paternalism and the development of autonomy. Ethical 
Theory and Moral Practice, 17(3), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-

013-9453-0 

 

National School Climate Center (2020). The 14 Dimensions of School Climate 

Measured by the CSCI. https://schoolclimate.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/NSCC_14-CSCI.pdf 

 

Ng, C. F. (2016). Behavioral mapping and tracking. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Research 

methods for environmental psychology (pp. 29-51). Malden, MA: Wiley 

Blackwell. 
 

Nolan, K. (2009). Critical social theory and the study of urban school discipline: The 

culture of control in a Bronx high school. In J. Anyon (Ed.), Theory and 

educational research: Toward critical social explanation (pp. 27-48). New 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42864005
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.513741
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083453
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030548
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916503035004007
https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-013-9453-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-013-9453-0


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 31 

York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 

 
Okilwa, N. S., & Robert, C. (2017). School discipline disparity: Converging efforts 

for better student outcomes. The Urban Review, 1-24. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0399-8 

 

Osmond, H. (1957). Function as the basis of psychiatric ward design. Mental 
Hospitals, 8, 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.8.4.23 

 

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, 

K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in 

mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental 

Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. doi: 
10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y 

 

Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century 

skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how 

students learn (pp. 116-147). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. 
 

Perkins, H. W., Perkins, J. M., & Craig, D. W. (2014). No safe haven: Locations of 

harassment and bullying victimization in middle schools. Journal of School 

Health, 84(12), 810-818. DOI: 10.1111/josh.12208 

 
Perry-Hazan, L., & Birnhack, M. (2018). The hidden human rights curriculum of 

surveillance cameras in schools: Due process, privacy and trust. Cambridge 

Journal of Education, 48(1), 47-64. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1224813 

 

Read, M. A., Sugawara, A. I., & Brandt, J. A. (1999). Impact of space and color in 
the physical environment on preschool children’s cooperative behavior. 

Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 413-428. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972173 

 

Saldoña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 4th Ed. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

 

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data 

collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in 

Nursing & Health, 23, 246-255. DOI: 10.1002/1098-
240x(200006)23:3<246::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-h 

 

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

 
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2007). How architecture regulates. Journal of 

Architectural and Planning Research, 24(4), 350-359. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030813 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0399-8
https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.8.4.23
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10488-013-0528-y
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12208
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1224813
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00139169921972173
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030813


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 32 

Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment 

lead to safe schools? The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372-382. 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439450 

 

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

 
Stansfeld, S. A., & Matheson, M. P. (2003). Noise pollution: Non-auditory effects on 

health. British Medical Bulletin, 68, 243-257. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldg033 

 

Uduku, O. (2015). Spaces for 21st-century learning. In S. McGrath & Q. Gu (Eds.), 

Routledge handbook of international education and development (pp. 196-
209). New York: Routledge. 

 

Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M., Wolsey, T. D. (2009). The walls still speak: The 

stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 400-426. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955818 
 

Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., 

Short, K., Sunderani, S., Scott, C, Mackenzie, M., & Cunningham, L. (2010). 

Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high 

bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 40-
54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509358686 

 

Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher-student 

trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators 

Research, 100(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9605-8 

 
Voight, A., & Nation, M. (2016). Practices for improving secondary school climate: A 

systematic review of the research literature. American Journal of Community 

Psychology, 58(1-2), 174-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12074 

 

Walden, R., Ed. (2015). Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural 
psychology. Springer. 

 

Wellenreiter, B. R. (2021). Where the action is: Exploring adolescents’ perspectives 

of middle school social venues. Middle School Journal, 52(2), 5-13.  

 https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2020.1868056 
  

Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, 

C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a 

coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381-400. 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010690908200 
 

Wolcott, H. F. (1997). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), 

Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 155-172). American 

Educational Research Association. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439450
https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldg033
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955818
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0829573509358686
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9605-8
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12074
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2020.1868056


Where to Hang Out: Interplay between School Building Characteristics… 33 

Woods, J. (2001). Hostile hallways. Educational Leadership, 59(4), 20. 

 
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007). A sound 

foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning 

and the implications for building schools for the future. Oxford Review of 

Education, 33(1), 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094693 

 
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094693