Journal of Education and Research

Journal of Education and Research, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2024, 100-121, https://doi.org/10.51474/jer/17791

Online publication date: Sep 20, 2024

Publication date: Sep 30, 2024

Views: 46 | Downloads: 24

For the past twenty-five years, educators have embraced and implemented the concept of functional and sustainably designed school infrastructure. This study investigates the contribution of sustainably built replacement schools on student engagement in Nepal. Drawing from extensive experience developing educational facilities, including constructing schools using sustainable methods, the authors emphasize the importance of involving diverse educational stakeholders in the design process. Using Schlechty's framework, the study focuses on creating learning environments that support both student-driven and teacher-led activities. Despite the recognized benefits of well-designed spaces, the empirical impact on student engagement remains underexplored. This research employs qualitative case studies in two public schools recently rebuilt using rammed earth technology to examine how the new infrastructure influences student engagement. Findings show that sustainably designed schools positively affect students' overall school experience, engagement in learning, and teachers' motivation. This study contributes to the discourse on educational architecture, suggesting that investment in thoughtful school design can enhance student and teacher satisfaction and performance.

Sustainable school design Replacement School Educational infrastructure Qualitative research Learning environments

1. Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils' learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118-133.
2. Boehnert, J., Sinclair, M., & Dewberry, E. (2022). Sustainable and responsible design education: Tensions in transitions. Sustainability, 14(11). https://doi.org/qn79
3. Bouslama, F., & Kalota, F. (2013). Creating smart classrooms to benefit from innovative technologies and learning space design. Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in Information Technology, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTIT.2013.6749486
4. Brandisauskiene, A., Buksnyte-Marmiene, L., Cesnaviciene, J., Daugirdiene, A., Kemeryte-Ivanauskiene, E., & Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene, R. (2021). Sustainable school environment as a landscape for secondary school students’ engagement in learning. Sustainability, 13(21), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111714
5. Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719–726.
6. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methodology. Oxford University Press.
7. Cole, L. B. (2014). The teaching green school building: A framework for linking architecture and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 20(6), 836–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833586
8. Creswell, J. (2014). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series, Paper 48. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dberspeakers/48
9. Dahal, B. (2022). The impact of service quality on customer loyalty in government banks in Nepal. KIC International Journal of Social Science and Management, 1(1), 24-34.
10. Dedieu, L., & Plé, E. (2023). A sustainable development project includes a role-play: Analysis of teachers' intentions to promote student engagement. Environmental Education Research, 29(8), 1104–1117. https://doi.org/qn8b
11. Dittoe, W. (2002). Innovative models of learning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.82
12. Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2009). Teacher attitudes about classroom conditions. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/fwrtqh
13. Government of Nepal. (2022). Education sector analysis: Status and trends in Nepal’s school education. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
14. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Long, A. Y., & Solon, M. (2015). Comparing interaction and use of space in traditional and innovative classrooms. Hispania, 98(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2015.0028
15. Herzog, S. (2007). The ecology of learning: The impact of classroom features and utilization on student academic success. New Directions for Institutional Research, 135, 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.224
16. Khanal, A. (2021). Sustainable living in schools: A study of Vajra Academy, Lalitpur. Current World Environment, 16(2), 472.
17. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2010). Validity, responsibility, and aporia. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(8), 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410374034
18. Lewin, K. M. (2007). Improving access, equity and transitions in education: Creating a research agenda.
19. Maxwell, J. A., & Kerja, A. K. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. In Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
20. Miller, N. G., Erickson, A., & Yust, B. L. (2001). Sense of place in the workplace: The relationship between personal objects and job satisfaction and motivation. Journal of Interior Design, 27(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/dm378k
21. Neupane, P. (2019). Policy framework for education development in Nepal. International Education Studies, 13(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n1p89
22. Palazzolo, D. J. (2023). Research methods. Experiencing Citizenship: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Political Science, 109–118. https://doi.org/qn8c
23. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A Personal, Experiential Perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
24. Pradhan, U., Shrestha, S., & Valentin, K. (2019). Disjunctured reciprocity: Paradoxes of community-school relationship in Nepal. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(5), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1584032
25. Regmi, K. D. (2017). World Bank in Nepal’s education: Three decades of neoliberal reform. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 188-201.
26. Rajbhandari, M. M. S., & Rajbhandari, S. (2016). Immortality of prejudice in striving Ubuntu: Case studies of community managed schools in Nepal. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(13), 1243–1250. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2381
27. Saeed, T., Iyengar, R., Witenstein, M. A., & Byker, E. J. (Eds.). (2024). Exploring education and democratization in South Asia: Research, policy, and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
28. Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. John Wiley & Sons.
29. Starman, A. B. (2013). The case study as a type of qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Education Studies, 1, 28–43.
30. Stoltzfus, J. R., & Libarkin, J. (2016). Does the room matter? Active learning in traditional and enhanced lecture spaces. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0126
31. Thapa, A. (2013). Does private school competition improve public school performance? The case of Nepal. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(4), 358-366.
32. Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1).
33. UNESCO. (2016). Global education monitoring report 2016: Education for people and planet-creating sustainable futures for all.
34. Vandaele, M., & Stålhammar, S. (2022). “Hope dies, action begins?” The role of hope for proactive sustainability engagement among university students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(8), 272–289. https://doi.org/gq26km
35. Weinstein, C. S. (1981). Classroom design as an external condition for learning. Educational Technology, 21(8), 12–19. https://about.jstor.org/terms

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