Windowless Classrooms or a Virtual Window World

Abstract

This study examined the influence of virtual windows, used to simulate windows in a classroom, on attentional tasks. Forty undergraduates took the Trail Making Task (TMT) and Benton’s Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWA) in a classroom with either virtual windows displaying nature scenes, or blind-covered windows. Results on the TMT and COWA revealed that virtual windows had a positive influence on participants’ ability to complete these tasks and that participants were more efficient at the TMT in the virtual window condition compared to the no window condition. These results indicate that virtual windows were not a distraction in the classroom and had a positive effect on performance. Implications for using virtual windows in classrooms without windows are discussed.

Keywords

virtual classrooms trail making task controlled oral word association test

For most teachers, their classrooms have physical limitations (e.g., too big or too small, stimulating or dull environment) and are packed with students. These students are armed with a variety of distractions competing for their attention. For example, phones can be buzzing, students may be texting, and laptops are often used for everything but note taking. Is such as environment optimal for learning? Psychologists and teachers alike often consider classroom variables that have the potential to either promote or hinder learning.

Most teachers would rate an environment in which students can pay attention high on the list of important classroom variables. Theories of attention (e.g., Kahneman, 1973; Kahneman & Treisman, 1983) that focus on the limited capacity of attention (i.e., a person can only do a certain amount of mental work before some aspect of what they are focusing their attention on will suffer) emphasize the importance of choosing what information is important. For learning to occur, students must be able to select important information that they can concentrate on and ignore competing distractions. There are many potential distractions in the classroom that can interfere with students’ ability to focus on information that is most crucial for learning. For example, Graetz (2006) demonstrated that when demands were placed on attention, students focused on information that was interesting or unfamiliar. Aside from distractions, teachers often consider the physical appearance of their classrooms and its influence on student attention.

Aspects of a classroom environment, including adequate lighting, comfortable temperature, and acceptable noise level can influence learning. Research has demonstrated the positive influence of well-lit classrooms on learning and attention (e.g., Luckiesh & Moss, 1940; Phillips, 1997). For example, Horton (1972) and Blackwell (1963) found that students’ ability to pay attention to instructions is affected by the strength of the lighting. Along with proper lighting, color has also been shown to affect students’ attention by creating either a stimulating or calming environment (Papadatos, 1973; Sinofsky & Knirck, 1981).

Research on school facilities has uncovered aspects of classroom environments that influence teaching and learning. For example, in a study documenting teachers’ ratings of working conditions, Schneider (2003) found that poor air quality, poor lighting, and inoperable or dirty windows affected teaching ability. In addition, faculty who were unsatisfied with their teaching facilities were more likely to consider leaving their position. In a similar study, Earthman and Lemasters (1998) examined the relation between educational facilities and learning and found that students’ achievement scores were higher when the windows, lighting, paint, and age of a facility were rated as above standard by school staff.

These studies demonstrate that essentials for good teaching and learning in a classroom go well beyond common classroom fixtures (e.g., chairs, desks, marker boards) to more aesthetic elements (e.g., proper lighting, color choice, and adequate windows). Windows have been found to be an important aspect of work environments. A study by Herzog (1985) revealed that participants not only preferred a window environment but favored windows with a view of a beautiful mountain waterscape. Unfortunately, not all workers have the luxury of looking out a window. For example, at our school, the Psychology Department is located in the basement of a large academic building. Some negative aspects of functioning in an underground environment have been discussed by Carmody and Sterling (1993). They include darkness and humid air, fear of entrapment if the structure were to collapse, disorientation, lack of natural light, poor ventilation, and a loss of connection with the natural world. It seems reasonable to assume that these aspects of underground environments can have a negative impact on learning.

If environments without adequate windows or no windows negatively impact learning, then work spaces and classrooms with adequate windows should aid in the learning process. Researchers (e.g., Berto, 2005; Kahn et al., 2008) have used televisions and computer screens that display images to determine whether they could provide benefits similar to that of windows in work environments. For example, Berto (2005) asked participants to complete a sustained attention task and then view restorative images (nature scenes), nonrestorative images (city streets, industrial zones), or geometrical images on a computer screen. After viewing the images, participants repeated the sustained attention task. Participants in the restorative condition used the nature scenes to restore their attentional capacity such that their performance on the second attention task was the same as performance on the first task.

If windows really are optimal, then what can be done to improve student learning environments in basements or other windowless rooms? In the current study, a classroom in the basement of the Psychology Department at Minnesota State University, Mankato, was manipulated into a virtual window environment called “vSKAPES.” vSKAPES (http://vskapes.com) is a virtual window system used to decrease stress and promote productivity and well-being in organizational, school, medical, and home settings that have no view of the outside. A vSKAPES system of windows consists of large, high-resolution, flat screen TV panels loaded with content to replicate outside environments that are installed into a room without windows.

This technology could provide a great alternative environment for students and teachers working in rooms without windows. A first step toward understanding the benefits of vSKAPES in the classroom would be to assess its influence on attentional processes. In this study, we assessed the influence of a virtual window vSKAPES environment on participants’ performance on attentional tasks compared to their performance on the same tasks in a windowless environment.

Method

Participants

Forty undergraduate students from Minnesota State University, Mankato, participated for partial credit in a psychology course. We randomly assigned each participant to one of two conditions: Twenty of the participants were randomly assigned to a virtual window (experimental) condition and the other 20 participants were randomly assigned to a no virtual window (control) condition.

Experimental Setting

A vSKAPES virtual window system was installed in a classroom in the basement of an academic building at Minnesota State University, Mankato. The room was remodeled to have light colored walls and gray carpet (see Figure 1 for setting layout).

Figure 1.

Experimental setting layout.

Experimental Conditions

We compared two conditions: Virtual window (experimental) and no virtual window (control). In the experimental condition, participants sat in front of a virtual window made to simulate looking out a window at a nature scene. In the control condition, participants sat in front of a virtual window, but it was covered with closed vertical blinds. In a third control condition, 20 participants completed the same attentional tasks in a classroom with an actual window. Participants’ performance on the attentional tasks in this third control condition was not reliably different from participants who completed the tasks in the virtual window condition. Due to this null result, data from the third condition were not included in the study.

Virtual window

Four 52-in. flat screen televisions were embedded within the walls of the classroom. Covering the televisions were storm windows and vertical off-white colored blinds. The televisions projected high-definition video recorded in Idaho during late September 2009 (see Figure 2). The images consisted of moving streams and plants. Wind and background nature sounds such as running water were also played during the study. Four Blu-ray players were used to play the video, which were concealed above the ceiling tiles of the experimental room.

Figure 2.

Virtual window.

No virtual window

Off-white colored, similar to the wall paint, vertical blinds covered all four windows. The blinds covered the entire television. No sound or video was played during this condition (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

No virtual window.

Measures

Habituation task

Participants began the experiment by working on a basic crossword puzzle for 5 min.

Attention task 1

The Trail Making Task (TMT) is a timed task measuring attentional capacity (Corrigan & Hinkeldey, 1987; Guidano, Geisler, & Squires, 1995; Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004; Reitan, 1958). This test consists of a sheet of paper with 25 circles on it with a number or letter inside of each circle. The first part of the test is to draw lines in ascending order of numerals from circle to circle (e.g., 1–2–3). The second part of the test is to connect the circles in ascending order alternating between numerals and letters (e.g., 1–A–2–B–3–C).

Attention task 2

The Benton Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWA), (Benton, Hamsher, & Sivan, 1994) is a verbal attention task. In this task, participants are given three letters, one at a time, and for each letter they must say aloud as many words as they can that begin with that letter in 1 min.

Procedure

We randomly assigned participants to either the experimental condition (i.e., virtual windows) or control condition (i.e., no virtual windows). We tested each participant individually in a session that lasted approximately 20 min. Participants were presented with all measures in the Experimental Setting section. We then gave participants a paper-and-pencil crossword puzzle to work on for 5 min. At this point, the experimenter left the participant alone in the room while timing the participant. After 5 min elapsed, participants completed the TMT Part A followed by Part B. Prior to the participant completing either Part A or Part B, the experimenter demonstrated how to complete each with a practice test. For this test, an error occurs if the participant draws a line connecting two circles that are not in ascending order and thus should not be linked. Each time the participant did this, the experimenter pointed out the error and had the participant go back to before the error occurred and continue from that point until finished. Time to complete the TMTs, Part A and Part B, was separately recorded along with the number of errors made on each of these tasks. After completing both versions of the TMT, participants began the COWA Test. This test consists of the experimenter saying a letter and the participant verbally stating as many words as they can think of that begin with that letter in 1 min. Each participant was assigned three letters to complete this task. An error on the COWA occurred when a participant used proper nouns such as names of people or places, or repeated a previously recorded word in the same or different form (e.g., the participant could not use “talk,” “talking,” “talked,” and “talks”). We recorded the number of words and errors for each of the three letters on the COWA. Finally, participants answered a few questions pertaining to their experience in the room (see Questionnaire in the Appendix A). Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions if they did not understand an aspect of the procedure at any time during the experiment.

Results

The means and standard deviations for participants on the TMT Part A and Part B can be found in Table 1. Results for both TMT A and TMT B are reported as the number of seconds required to complete the task; longer time to complete the task is a measure of task difficulty. Average time on TMT A was 29 s and average time on TMT B was 75 s. Two participants were not included in the analysis as their scores on TMT B were more than 3 standard deviations beyond the mean. There was no difference in the time it took participants to complete the TMT A in the virtual window condition versus the no virtual window condition. There was also no difference in the number of errors made on the TMT A in the virtual window condition compared to the no virtual window condition. However, participants in the no virtual window condition took more time to complete TMT B than those in the virtual window condition, t(36) = 2.53, p < .05. There was no significant difference in the number of errors made on TMT B in the virtual window condition compared to the no virtual window condition. When combining test completion times for both TMTs, participants in the no virtual window condition took significantly more time to complete the forms compared to participants in the virtual window condition, t(36) = 2.32, p < .05. The means and standard deviations for participants on the COWA are presented in Table 2. Two participants were removed from the analysis because they recorded fewer than 20 words, which is defined by a norming study on Benton’s COWA (Ruff, Light, Parker, & Levin, 1996) as severely impaired. There were no significant differences in the number of words reported between the experimental and control conditions.

Table 1.

Mean Response Time (In Seconds) and Errors Made on TMTs by Condition

	Response Time		Errors Made
Trail Making Task	M	SD	M	SD
Form A
Virtual window	21.29	6.45	.32	.67
No virtual window	23.99	9.14	.16	.38
Form B
Virtual window	42.12	8.03	.53	1.12
No virtual window	54.65	20.00	1.00	1.56
Combined forms
Virtual window	63.53	10.55	.84	1.26
No virtual window	78.47	26.02	1.16	1.74

Table 2.

Mean Number of Words Reported on COWA by Condition

	Word 1		Word 2		Word 3		Total Words
Words Reported by Condition	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Virtual window	13.50	4.07	12.90	4.01	12.60	2.95	39.10	8.60
No virtual window	12.83	4.05	12.00	4.67	11.56	4.08	36.39	11.44

Qualitative responses provided an understanding of participant perception of the virtual windows (see Appendix A). When asked, “Were you able to pay attention to the experimenter and understand the tasks you were asked to complete,” all participants reported “yes.” This indicates that participants had no problems paying attention in the virtual window condition. When we asked participants, “Did you notice anything unique about the room you completed the study in today,” 18 of the 20 participants in the virtual window condition answered “yes” compared to only 7 of the 20 participants in the no virtual window condition. Of the 18 reporting “yes” in the virtual window condition, 17 provided further information that what they noticed was the virtual windows with nature scenery. Some participants even revealed specific details, commenting on how “relaxing” the scenes were and that they “contained flowers and plants.”

Discussion

Research suggests that windows in workspaces prove important for overall satisfaction and can even influence teaching and learning outcomes. Yet when faculty think of the classrooms they teach in most often, they may realize their everyday teaching environments are windowless. Thus, alternatives for workspaces that do not contain windows should be considered. A dream solution would be to construct new buildings containing beautiful ergonomic environments with the most up-to-date facilities; however, because this is not a reality for many academic institutions, a virtual window environment (i.e., vSKAPES) could be a useful alternative. The goal of this study was to determine if virtual windows disrupted attention in a classroom as a first step in considering the value of this technology. We believed that virtual windows, while definitely adding to the appeal of the classroom, would prove to be a distraction on two attention tasks.

We were surprised to find counterintuitive results. That participants took less time to complete the TMT Part B and both Part A and B combined in the virtual window condition compared to the no virtual window condition indicates that the virtual window did not distract participants from completing the task. Even more surprising was the positive finding that task completion took longer when the virtual windows were not used. Although the differences were nonsignificant, participants named more words for each letter and for all letters combined in the virtual window condition compared to the no virtual window condition. These null results demonstrate that the virtual windows were not distracting and are also supportive for using a virtual window environment.

The current study validates using virtual windows by demonstrating that this technology does not deter participants from being able to concentrate on a task. Most interesting was the result that performance was enhanced, in part, in the virtual window environment. We were also pleased to find out that students were well aware of the unique visual scenes around them and felt they created a relaxing and positive environment. Combining the results of this study with previous research that demonstrates the restorative effects of virtual windows and worker preferences for windows provides strong support for this technology. Although many academic departments may wish to conduct more research before installing virtual windows in classrooms, we believe the results are encouraging for those who teach and learn in environments that are less than desirable. Furthermore, we hope this study promotes a renewed discussion on physical characteristics of the classroom that may benefit teaching and learning as well the use of alternative learning environments.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Benton

A. L.

Hamsher

Sivan

A. B.

(1994). Multilingual aphasia examination. Iowa City, IA: AJA Associates.

Berto

(2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249–259.

Blackwell

H. R.

(1963). A general quantitative method for evaluating the visual significance of reflected glare utilizing visual performance data. Illuminating Engineering, 58, 61.

Carmody

Sterling

(1993). Underground space design—A guide to subsurface utilisation and design for people in underground spaces. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Corrigan

J. D.

Hinkeldey

M. S.

(1987). Relationships between parts A and B of the trail making test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 402–409.

Earthman

G. I.

Lemasters

(February, 1998). Where children learn: A discussion of how a facility affects learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Virginia Educational Facility Planners, Blacksburg, VA.

Gaudino

E. A.

Geisler

M. W.

Squires

N. K.

(1995). Construct validity in the Trail Making Test: What makes Part B harder ? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 529–535.

Graetz

(2006). The psychology of learning environments. In Oblinger

(Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 6.1–6.13). Copyright, 2006 EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at www.educause.edu/learningspaces.

Herzog

T. R.

(1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225–241.

10.

Horton

C. D.

(1972). Humanization of the learning environment. Arlington, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED066929).

11.

Kahn

P. H.

Jr. Friedman

Gill

Hagman

Severson

R. L.

Freier

N. G., … Stolyar A.

(2008). A plasma display window? The shifting baseline problem in a technologically mediated natural world. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 192–199.

12.

Kahneman

(1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Kahneman

Treisman

(1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Parasuraman

Davies

Beatty

(Eds.), Varieties of attention (Vol. 1, pp. 29) New York, NY: Academic Press.

14.

Lezak

M. D.

Howieson

D. B.

Loring

D. W.

(2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Luckiesh

Moss

F. K.

(1940). Effects of classroom lighting upon the educational progress and visual welfare of school children. Illuminating Engineering, 35, 915–938.

16.

Luminare Eternus. (2010). vSKAPES: view the world. Retrieved from http://www.vskapes.com/

17.

Papadotas

S. P.

(1973). Color then motivated-color's psychological effects on students. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 57, 92–94.

18.

Phillips

R. W.

(1997). Educational facility age and the academic achievement of upper elementary school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

19.

Reitan

R. M.

(1958). Validity of the Trail Making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.

20.

Ruff

R. M.

Light

R. H.

Parker

S. B.

Levin

H. S.

(1996). Benton controlled oral word association test: Reliability and updated norms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 329–338.

21.

Schneider

(2003). Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

22.

Sinofsky

E. R.

Knirck

F. G.

(1981). Choose the right color for your learning style. Instructional Innovator, 26, 17–19.