Effective Environmental Factors on Designing Productive Learning Environments

Abstract

Educational spaces play an important role in enhancing learning productivity levels of society people as the most important places to human train. Considering the cost, time and energy spending on these spaces, trying to design efficient and optimized environment is a necessity. Achieving efficient environments requires changing environmental criteria so that they can have a positive impact on the activities and learning in users. Therefore, creating suitable conditions for promoting learning in users requires full utilization of the comprehensive knowledge of architecture and the design of the physical environment with respect to the environmental, social and aesthetic dimensions; Which will naturally increase the usefulness of people in space and make optimal use of the expenses spent on building schools and the time spent on education and training.The main aim of this study was to find physical variables affecting on increasing productivity in learning environments. This study is quantitative-qualitative and was done in two research methods: a) survey research methods (survey) b) correlation method. The samples were teachers and students in secondary schools’ in Zahedan city, the sample size was 310 people. Variables were extracted using the literature review and deep interviews with professors and experts. The questionnaire was obtained using variables and it is used to collect the views of teachers and students. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.89 which indicates that the information gathering tool is acceptable. The findings shows that there are four main physical factor as: 1. Physical comfort, 2. Space layouts, 3. Psychological factors and 4. Visual factors thet they are affecting positively on space productivity. Each of the environmental factors play an important role in improving the learning quality and increasing interest in attending learning environments; therefore, the desired environment improves the productivity of the educational spaces by improving the components of productivity.

Full text

1
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 11(22), 1-8, Spring 2018
ISSN: 2008-5079
EISSN: 2538-2365
Effective Environmental Factors on Designing Productive
Learning Environments
Hamidreza Azemati1*, Zinat Aminifar2 and Somayeh Pourbagher3
1 Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Urban Design, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training
University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Student of Architecture, School of Architecture and Urban Design, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training
University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Ph.D. Student of Architecture, School of Architecture and Urban Design, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training
University, Tehran, Iran.
Received 28 May 2016; Revised 22 June 2016; Accepted 2 November 2016
ABSTRACT: Educational spaces play an important role in enhancing learning productivity levels
of society people as the most important places to human train. Considering the cost, time and energy
spending on these spaces, trying to design efcient and optimized environment is a necessity. Achieving
efcient environments requires changing environmental criteria so that they can have a positive impact on
the activities and learning in users. Therefore, creating suitable conditions for promoting learning in users
requires full utilization of the comprehensive knowledge of architecture and the design of the physical
environment with respect to the environmental, social and aesthetic dimensions; Which will naturally
increase the usefulness of people in space and make optimal use of the expenses spent on building schools
and the time spent on education and training.The main aim of this study was to nd physical variables
affecting on increasing productivity in learning environments. This study is quantitative-qualitative and
was done in two research methods: a) survey research methods (survey) b) correlation method. The
samples were teachers and students in secondary schools’ in Zahedan city, the sample size was 310
people. Variables were extracted using the literature review and deep interviews with professors and
experts. The questionnaire was obtained using variables and it is used to collect the views of teachers
and students. Cronbach’s alpha coefcient was 0.89 which indicates that the information gathering
tool is acceptable. The ndings shows that there are four main physical factor as: 1. Physical comfort,
2. Space layouts, 3. Psychological factors and 4. Visual factors thet they are affecting positively on space
productivity. Each of the environmental factors play an important role in improving the learning quality
and increasing interest in attending learning environments; therefore, the desired environment improves
the productivity of the educational spaces by improving the components of productivity.
Keywords: Space Productivity, Educational Space, Learning, Attendance.
* Corresponding Author Email: Azemati@srttu.edu
INTRODUCTION
One of the effective factors in the process of modern
education is how to dene the physical criteria of the
educational environment. In the other words, there is a
positive relationship between the physical dimensions
of the architectural space and productivity of the users.
Physical conditions of the environment greatly affect
the efciency and effectiveness of individual and group
learning.
During their studies, people spend a great deal of
their time in educational spaces and schools; so providing
physical and psychological comfort for users during
school time is necessary. Lack of attention to users’
needs in design of educational spaces will disrupt the
growth and academic achievements; so, schools should
be considered actively to achieve optimal performance.
Achieving efcient environments, is the need to change
the criteria, so users can have a positive impact on active
participation and learning.
Environmental psychologists believe that physical
factors have an undeniable impact on human thoughts and

2
Azemati, H. et al.
behavior. Creativity and innovation of architects has an
impact on diversity of architectural spaces in schools, but
there are many students that refuse to go to school or they
don’t want to spend hours in school. Users’ satisfaction in
the higher educational environment is critical for gaining
self-condence and ourishing their potential capabilities
and also it has an effect on schools’ efciency (Azemati
& Pourbagher, 2018).
Issues related to the physical environment has
always been considered from the perspective of
environmental psychology and referred to as a container
that human behavior and interaction takes place and
responses to users’ mental and physical, psychological
comfort- physical needs. Regardless of this, the space
can cause major damages to human physiological and
psychological needs (Lang, 2012). The architecture and
physical education classes play an important role in the
quality of students’ educational activities and process.
Designers and architects have turned to interdisciplinary
approaches in order to identify the meanings and feelings
the environment and to identify gaps in environmental
design disciplines (Javan Forouzandeh & Motallebi,
2012).
Also considering the factors that increase the sense
of vitality in educational environments and delivering
practical solutions to enhance the feeling of vitality and
subsequently improve the quality of the educational
environment through architectural design is important.
Structural factors, Environmental factors, Psychological
factors and Social factors are the main factors in this eld
(Azemati et al., 2017).
The physical environment is designed in such a way
that obstructs the learning process although researches
have established a close correlation between the amount
of work individual do and its physical environment. It
stands to reason that a student sitting in an insufferably
hot airless room listening to a lecture on cryogenics would
not learn as much as he would in a cool comfortable space.
Unfortunately, college buildings are designed to attract
people from outside while they fail to provide a safe and
comfortable internal atmosphere for students. There is
a signicant effect of classroom physical environment
on the academic achievement scores of secondary
school students. Well-equipped classroom with physical
facilities has a signicant positive effect on the academic
achievement scores of secondary school students. If the
students feel comfortable within classroom, then they will
have much concentration on the lessons taught to them
and that is why they will get more information from the
teachers and thus they will obtain high scores (Suleman
& Hussain, 2014, p. 80).
Considering the assessment of learning environments
and classrooms in our country, what has often been
neglected in these spaces is less paying attention to the
needs of users in designing. Currently, most schools are
out of shape.
In building of these schools, the impact of
environmental factors, such as climate and socio-cultural
factors are ignored, which in turn creates an inappropriate
environment for learning.
Failure to achieve physical and psychological
comfort in schools causes students to fatigue in the
school environment and decreases the inclination rate of
willingness to attend school. This issue has been affected
on the helpful presence of users at school and disrupted
the process of growth and academic achievement and
nally results in wasting time and costs.
The purpose of this study is to nd the physical
variables that affect the productivity of educational
spaces.
Main research questions:
• What are the physical criteria of a productive
learning environment?
• Does the changing physical environment affect the
student learning?
• Can changing the physical environment increases
the duration of student attendance in the educational
environment?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF
RESEARCH
Environmental psychologists believe that physical
factors have an undeniable impact on human thoughts
and behavior. Architectural spaces together with other
education factors have signicant effects on the student’s
learning outcomes. Education administrators are always
trying to nd strategies to increase academic performance
of students in the school settings, such as offering different
curriculum options, different methods of teaching, better
teachers, smaller classes, tutoring after school and so on.
However, the physical environment factors are important
and they play a main role on the quality of educational
activities. According to the humanistic perspective,
the environment in which a person is grown inuences
personality. A number of researches indicate that physical
environment can dramatically inuence the efciency and
effectiveness of individual and group learning (Azemati
& Pourbagher, 2018, p. 2).
A desirable school with a healthy, safe and secure
environment is able to maximize readiness and increase
the role of students in promoting public culture and also

3
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 11(22), 1-8, Spring 2018
provides context to improve the efciency of resource
management in schools (Haji Babaei, 2012, p. 55).
Studies on the effect of the physical environment on
training and learning have shown that the environment
signicantly affects students’ academic achievement and
their behavior.
Among the environmental factors affecting the
productivity of universities, it is possible to highlight
the quality of the classes in terms of heat, silence,
illumination, furniture, facilities and cleanliness (Musavi,
2006, p. 103).
Earthman refers to seven physical factors of learning
spaces that affect student achievement. These factors
include temperature and thermal comfort, air quality and
ventilation, lighting, sound control, science laboratories,
capacity of elementary school students and high school
students (Earthman, 2004, p. 10).
The relationship between the conditions of building
and the success of students in rural high schools has been
reviewed. Students’ grades in academic achievement
trials have dropped to 5 points in buildings with low
quality ratings (Cash, 1993).
Students’ academic achievement improves as the
school building improves. Building conditions such as
brightness, color, temperature, air quality, acoustics,
school size and furniture have a signicant impact on
student behavior and outcomes.
Low light, health and performance of students and
the color of attitude, behavior and learning, especially
the range of attention and time feelings in students are
inuential (Fisher, 2000, p. 2).
In the above-mentioned studies productivity has been
studied from the perspective of a device and measurement
of efciency scores of students.
A large number of studies indicated that there is a
relationship between noise pollution and problems with
reading, weakness in skills before reading and most
perceptual weaknesses (Higgins et al., 2005). The quality
of ambient light affects students’ learning. “Another
important factor in learning is the proper equipment for
heat and cold production, which can lead to a decrease in
learning” (Moinpour et al., 2004, p. 4).
The presence of plants in the classroom can improve
students’ performance and can be used even as an
educational tool (Daly, 2010).
Movement and circulation in space, daylight and
optimal visibility affects the success of students (Tanner,
2009, p. 381)
Traditional classrooms with tables arranged in several
rows disconnects students from having the diverse and
exible groupings that they need (Stone, 2001). So, for
improve efciency in educational environments attention
to the environmental conditions, the social-psychological
factors, spatial and cognitive factors are more important
factors compared with other factors (Azemati &
Pourbagher, 2017).
PRODUCTIVITY
Nowadays productivity goes beyond the scope of
economic activities and industrial production, and it is
inconceivable in other political, social and cultural elds.
“Productivity in the word means production power and
fertility and productiveness” (Bahramian, 2011, p. 40).
Productivity is a multi-dimensional term that the
meaning of it can be vary depending on the area in which
it is used.
Productivity is a kind of way of thinking that every
person can do his duties each day better than the previous
day (Alwani & Ahmadi, 2001, p. 2).
Productivity in terms of Iran’s Productivity Center:
A culture, a rational attitude to work that aims to make
activities smarter to achieve a better and more active life
(Yousefy, 2012).
An educational organization is more effective when
it has the right and proper goals to choose and can be
achieved; and this organization is efcient when it can
use the various sources properly (Mousavi, 2005, p. 44).
Therefore, before examining the productivity of
physical education, it is necessary to dene the inside data,
the process, and outsourcing in the educational spaces.
Internal factors include students, teachers, educational
tools and most importantly time; and external factors
include the ability, learning and performance of students.
School productivity is measured mainly by school
spending money (facilities, space, and people) and
students’ academic achievement.
“School with High-productivity is a school that for
every dollar spent on it the success of its students becomes
greater “(Hoxby, 2002).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present research is a fundamental research and is a
quantitative-qualitative research. In this study correlation
methods have been used, to understand the relationships
between variables. The statistical population of the study
included all the teachers and students who worked in the
academic year of 1394-1393 in Zahedan city.
The sampling method is random, and the sample size
is 310 people. Due to the lack of a standard questionnaire,
a researcher-made questionnaire was used.

4
Effective Environmental Factors on Designing Productive Learning Environments
In order to investigate the validity, three methods
of formal validity, content validity and validity of the
structure of tool has been used.
Formal validity is designated by qualied experts and
professors.
For content validity the table of target - content has
been used and the instrumental validity was also studied
using factor analysis method.
Cronbach’s alpha coefcient was 0.89 which indicates
that the information gathering tool is acceptable.
FINDINGS
In order to investigate the hypotheses of the research,
multiple regression methods have been used in step by
step method.
To test the rst and second hypotheses standard
or simultaneous regression was used. In this method,
the effect of a set of environmental variables on the
components of productivity has been examined. The
environment variable contains the following four groups:
• Environmental comfort: Natural light, window,
temperature, air quality, acoustic.
• Visual factors: Color, scale, visual appearance,
materials, visual communication between spaces and
nature.
• Space order: Circulation, accessibility, exibility,
user interference in space formation, communication
between inside and outside space, furniture, open space
and roof space, open plan and space layout.
• Psychological factors: Safe and relaxed places,
environment attractiveness, readability of environment,
private space, social environment.
•
The rst hypothesis: Designing educational
spaces with respect to the physical environment of the
environment can affect the learning of users.
Table 1. Coefcient Regression Results - the Impact of the Environment Variable on Learning
The
Signicance
Level
p F t 2 R R BETA b A Predictive Variable
0.00 0.01 39.48 6.51 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.10 11.77 Inuence of the Environment on Learning
According to the table, the analysis shows that the
four environmental factors can predict eleven percent
(%11) of the variance of learning.
Achieved value (B = 0.33) is signicant on a level of
p = 0/01.
Therefore, with 99.9% condence, environmental
factors can predict learning positively.
Y = 11.77+0.10 MY
Second hypothesis: Designing educational spaces
with respect to the physical factors can affect on presence
in space.
Table 2. Results of Simultaneous Regression Impact of the Environment Variable on Presence in the Space
The
Signicance
Level
p F t 2 R R BETA b A Predictive Variable
0.00 0.01 55.48 7.51 0.15 0.39 0.39 0.13 10.77 Inuence of the Environment on Learning
According to the table, the analysis shows that the
environmental factors can predict 0.16 of the variance of
presence. (B = 0.40) is signicant on a level of p = 0/01.
Therefore, with 99.9% condence, environmental
factors can predict presence in the space positively.
Third hypothesis: Designing educational spaces
to improve the level of user learning improves the
productivity of space.
The main hypothesis: Designing educational spaces
with respect to the physical factors of the environment
can affect the productivity of space.
Among the predictive variables, the effect of the
environment on learning that has the components of
psychological factors, spatial layout, visual factors, and
environmental comfort is introduced into the equation as
a predictor variable in several steps and were introduced
the effect of learning on productivity as a criterion
variable.

5
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 11(22), 1-8, Spring 2018
Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis (Step-by-Step) - Environment Predictor Variables and Learning on Productivity
Second Stage First Stage
Predictive Variable
The Signicance
Level TBETA B AThe Signicance
Level TBETA B A
0.00 4.34 0.29 0.26 6.91 0.00 3.91 0.21 0.19 6.48 Psychological Factors of Presence
0.00 -1.97 -0.13 -0.07 Space Layout Presence
0.24 0.21 Correlation Coefcient -R
0.06 0.04 Multiplying Coefcient- R2
9.68 15.32 F Value
0.00 0.00 The Signicance Level
The table 3 shows the results of regression analysis
of the variable environmental factors (spatial layout and
environmental comfort) on user learning and then the
effect of the two obtained variables on the productivity
variable.
During the regression analysis of the set of predicate
variables, it is clear that these two variables can predict
productivity on learning as the best set of variables.
According to the above results, the strongest predictor
of productivity is the environmental comfort variable
(p < 0.01; t = 4.4; B = 0.29)
This variable signicantly explains about 0.04% of
the variance of learning scores on productivity.
The second variable entered into the analysis is the
spatial arrangement of learning) p < 0.00; t = -1.97;
B = -0.13). The input of this variable to the analysis
increases the coefcient of explanation by 0.06%.
Fourth hypothesis: The design of educational spaces
by improving the level of space presence in the space
improves the productivity of space.
The main hypothesis: Designing educational spaces
with respect to the physical factors of the environment
can affect the productivity of space.
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis (Step-by-Step) - Environment Predictor Variables and Presence in the Space on
Productivity
Second Stage First Stage
Predictive Variable
The Signicance
Level TBETA B AThe Signicance
Level TBETA B A
0.00 4.09 0.15 0.10 5.18 0.00 6.4 0.34 0.24 6.12 Psychological Factors of Presence
0.00 2.21 0.28 0.13 Space Layout Presence
0.40 0.34 Correlation Coefcient -R
0.16 0.11 Multiplying Coefcient- R2
29.93 40.99 F Value
0.00 0.00 The Signicance Level
Table 5. Results of Regression Analysis (Step-by-Step)- Environment Predictor Variables and Presence in the Space on
Productivity
Third Level Predictive Variable
The Signicance Level TBETA B A
0.00 2.51 0.15 0.07 Space Layout - presence
0.00 2.51 0.15 0.35 4.14 Environmental Comfort - presence
0.50 Correlation Coefcient -R
0.25 Multiplying Coefcient- R2
52.38 F Value
0.00 The Signicance Level

6
Azemati, H. et al.
The table 5 shows the results of regression analysis
of the variables of environmental factors (psychological
factors, spatial layout and environmental comfort) on
attendance and then the effect of the three achieved
variables on the productivity variable. The strongest
predictor of productivity is the effect of psychological
factors on the presence in the space (p < 0.01; t = 6.4;
B = 0.34). This variable alone explains about 11% of
variance in productivity scores. The second variable
entered into the analysis is the effect of spatial layout
on presence in the space (p < 0.00; t = 2.21; B = 0.28).
The input of this variable to the analysis increases the
coefcient of explanation by 0.16%. The third variable
entered into the analysis is the effect of environmental
comfort on the presence in the space (p < 0.00; t = 4.34;
B = 0.29). Whose entry increases the 0.9 coefcient of
explanation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of this study indicate that there is a
signicant relationship between the physical environment
and the productivity of schools.
On the other hand, there is a positive relationship
between the physical dimensions of the architectural
space and the productivity and productivity of the users;
Therefore achieving efcient environments requires
changing environmental criteria so that they can have a
positive impact on the activities and learning of users.
Therefore, creating suitable conditions for promoting
the learning of users requires full utilization of the
comprehensive knowledge of architecture and the
design of the physical environment with respect to the
environmental, social and aesthetic dimensions; which
will naturally increase the usefulness of people in space
and will make optimal use of the expenses spent on
building schools and the time spent on education and
training.
Improving productivity in schools has led to increased
productivity in education and training, and this also
contributes to national productivity growth.
The two factors of space availability and user
learning are the factors that affect productivity in
educational spaces. On the other hand, the characteristics
of the physical environment have a positive effect on
the quality of these two components of productivity.
The characteristics of the physical environment are
categorized into four categories (environmental comfort,
visual factors, environment layout, and psychological
factors), the sub factors of are listed in table 6.
What matters in terms of environmental comfort is
the use of natural light, the tting of a suitable window,
temperature control, air quality and acoustic.
Moreover, the components that affect visual factors
are such as: Color, scale, visual appearance, materials,
visual communication between spaces and nature.
Sub- factors that affect the layout of the environment
include: Circulation, access, exibility, using the users’
idea in shaping space, the relationship between inside
and outside space, furniture, close space and open space,
open plan and space layouts; and psychological factors
are inuenced by sub-criteria such as: Safe and relaxed
places, ambience attractiveness, environment readability,
private space and social environment. Therefore, in
designing the educational spaces, it is recommended to
consider the factors that are extracted in the research.
Table 6. Environmental Factors Affecting Space Productivity
Effective Environmental Factors Factors Affecting Space Productivity
The Use of Natural Light, The Fitting of a Suitable Window, Temperature
Control, Air Quality and Acoustic
Environmental Comfort
Color, Scale, Visual Appearance, Materials, Visual Connection between
Spaces and Nature
Visual Factors
Circulation, Accessibility, Flexibility, User Involvement in Space Design,
Connection between inside and outside Space, Furniture, Open Space and
Plan Layout
Layout of Environment
Secure Space, Environment Readability, Private Space, Social Environment Psychological Factors
Each of the environmental factors play an important
role in improving the learning quality and increasing
interest in attending learning environments; therefore,
the desired environment improves the productivity of
the educational spaces by improving the components of
productivity.
The ndings of this study are in line with the
the ndings of Mousavi (2005), Fischer (1997) and

7
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 11(22), 1-8, Spring 2018
Earthman (1998) about impact of the environment on the
productivity of educational spaces and the success and
academic achievement of users.
Regarding the impact of the environment on learning,
what has been studied in the previous research, each one
considers the impact of one or a few limited environmental
factors on learning; the obtained results in this study are
in line with previous ndings.
In most of the previous studies, the impact of the
environment on learning has generally been studied on
success and academic achievement, but the impacts of
space factor has not been addressed.
Also, the productivity of educational spaces is
measured by amount of money spent and the grades
of students score but environmental factors have not
received much in attention.
Also, in Iranian universities, there are few applied
research and studies aimed at improving the efciency
of educational spaces, except for a few very limited
cases, and even the concept of productivity in the eld
of educational spaces has not been comprehensively
dened.
Considering the relationship between the environment
and other school productivity measures can be a great
topic for future studies.

8
Effective Environmental Factors on Designing Productive Learning Environments
REFERENCES
Ahmadpoor Samani, S. (2012). The Impact of Indoor
Lighting on Students’ Learning Performance in Learning
Environments: A Knowledge Internalization Perspective.
International Journal of Business and Social Science,
3(24), Special Issue , 127-136
Alwani, S. M., & Ahmadi, P. (2001). Designing a
Comprehensive Pattern of Managing Factors Affecting
Human Resource Efciency. Teacher, 5(1), 1 – 19.
Azemati, H.R., & Pourbagher, S. (2017). Analysis and
Recognition of Factors Affecting Stress in Educational
Environments (Based on Shannon Entropy), CEPAL
Review, 121.
Azemati, H.R., & Pourbagher, S. (2018). Improvement
of Students’ Satisfaction with Physical Factors in
Educational Environments based on the Concepts
of Quranic Verses and Jurisprudential Narratives,
Naqshejahan, TMU (Tarbiat Modares University), 7(4),
1-10.
Azemati, H.R., Pourbagher, S., & Ghaempanah, M.
(2017). Analyzing Affective Factors on Students’ Vitality
in High Schools, Transylvanian Review, 25(14)
Bahramian, M.R. (2011). Productivity Cycle in
Organizations: The Position of Productivity in the
Horizons of Aspirations. Management Development, 89,
39 – 45.
Bunting, A. (2004). Secondary Schools Designed for
A Purpose: But Which One?. Teacher, 154, 10–13.
Cash, C. (1993). A Study of the Relationship between
School Building Condition and Student Achievement and
Behaviour. Blacksburg, Virginia Polytechnic.
Daly, J., Burchett, M., & Torpy, F. (2010). Plants
in the Classroom Can Improve Student Performance.
University of Technology, Sydney.
Earthman, GI. (2004). Prioritization of 31 Criteria
for School Building Adequacy, American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation of Maryland. Accessed Online on
30/04/07 at<http://www.aclu.md.org/aTop%20Issues/
Education%20Reform/EarthmanFinal10504.pdf>.
Fisher, K. (2000). Building Better Outcomes: The
Impact of School Infrastructure on Student Outcomes
and Behaviour. Schooling Issues Digest, Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.
Haji Babaei, H.R. (2012). School Features I Like,
According to the Document of the Fundamental
Transformation in Education. Quarterly Educational
Innovations, 42(11), 51 - 74.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P.,
& McCaughey, C. (2005). The Impact of School
Environments: A Literature Review. The Centre
for Learning and Teaching, School of Education,
Communication and Language Science, University of
Newcastle. Accessed Online on 30/04/07 at <http://www.
cfbt.com/PDF/91085.pdf>.
Hoxby, C. M. (2002). School Choice and School
Productivity. National Bureau of Economic 1050
Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge.
McGregor, J. (2004). Spatiality and the Place of the
Material in Schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society,
12(3), 347–372.
Moeinpour, H., Nasr Esfahani, A.R., & Sa’edi,
A. (2004). The Effect of Class Physical Factors on
Students’ Academic Achievement, Quarterly Journal of
Educational Approaches, 1(4).
Musavi, A. (2006). Factors Affecting the Productivity
of the Universities and Supreme Command of the Army
of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Military Management,
21.
Stone, N.J. (2001). Designing Study Environments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21, 179-190.
Tanner, C. K. (2009). Effects of School Design
on Student Outcomes. Journal of Educational
Administration, 47(3), 381-399.
Youse, A. (2012). The Study of the Relationship
between Productivity and Continuous Improvement and
Performance Management System, Scientic Articles
Management Database.