The opportunities of physical environment in the context of inclusive education



We discuss the possibilities of the physical environment to create conditions to en- able every child in the process of learning and social interaction. It is shown that the physical environment is a crucial factor in human development, encompassing the capacity to maintain psychological well-being and human capabilities. We draw at- tention to the importance to study not only the social aspect of the living environment, but also its material component. We reveal the basic concepts and mechanisms of the interaction of humans and the environment as the basis for the formation of an inclusive space. The authors suggest that such concepts as environment friendliness and inclusiveness are closely interlinked with common ground in principle of environ- ment compliance to capabilities and features of a person. We also discuss a possible model of the physical environment of inclusive space, based on the principles of hu- man interaction and the living space and the ideas of universal design. We conclude that the creation of conditions for equal access to education must take into account features of the physical environment in terms of its friendliness to every student.

General Information

Keywords: physical environment, inclusion, environment friendliness, assumptions, personalization, versatile design

Journal rubric: Perspectives of Inclusive Education

Article type: scientific article

For citation: Dmitrieva N.S., Nartova-Bochaver S.K. The opportunities of physical environment in the context of inclusive education. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2014. Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 74–81. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Velichkovskii B. M. Kognitivnaia nauka: Osnovy psikhologii poznaniia [Cognitive science: foundations of epistemic psychology]. In 2 vol. Vol. 2. Moscow: Smysl, Izdatel'skii tsentr «Akademiia», 2006. 432 p.
  2. Itterstad G. Inkliuziia – chto oznachaet eto po- niatie, i s kakimi problemami stalkivaetsia norvezh- skaia shkola, pretvoriaia ego v zhizn'? [What is Re- ally Meant by Unclusion: a Teacher's Point of View]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psycholo- gical science and education], 2011, no. 3. P. 41–49.
  3. Lewin K. Teoriia polia v sotsial'nykh naukakh [Field theory in social science] / [Per. E. Surpina]. Saint Petersburg: Rech', 2000. 365 p.
  4. Mitchell D. Effektivnye pedagogicheskie tekhno- logii spetsial'nogo i inkliuzivnogo obrazovaniia. Glavy iz knigi [Effective  educational  technology for special and inclusive education] / Per. I. S. Ani- keev, N. V. Borisova. ROOI «Perspektiva», 2011. 138 p.
  5. Nartova-Bochaver S. K. Teoriia privatnosti kak napravlenie zarubezhnoi psikhologii [Theory of Privacy as a line of foreign psychology]. Psikho- logicheskii zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2006, no. 5. P. 28–39.
  6. Nartova–Bochaver S. K. Psikhologicheskoe prost- ranstvo lichnosti [Psychological space of the per- son]. Moscow, 2005. 312 p.
  7. Nartova-Bochaver S. K. Fizicheskaia shkol'naia sreda kak prediktor zdorov'ia i blagopoluchiia sub"ektov obrazovatel'nogo protsessa (obzor zaru- bezhnykh issledovanii) [Electronic resource] [Physi- cal environment as a predictor of teachers’ and pu- pils’ health and well-being (review)]. Klinicheskaia i spetsial'naia psikhologiia [Clinical and Special Psy- chology], 2012, no. 1. URL: (Accessed: 22.12.2013).
  8. Smith N. Sovremennye sistemy psikhologii [Cur- rent Systems in Psychology] / Per. s angl. pod obsh. red. A. A. Alekseeva. Saint Petersburg: Praim– Evroznak, 2003. 384 p.
  9. Shemanov A. Iu., Popova N. T. Inkliuziia v kul'turologicheskoi perspektive [Inclusion in Cultu- rological Perspective]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological science and education], 2011, no. 1. P. 74–82.
  10. Beresford A. B. Resources and Strategies: How Parents Cope with the Care of a Disabled Child. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1994. V. 35, no. 1. P. 171–209.
  11. Broderic A., Mehta-Parekh H., Kim Reid. D. Dif- ferentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in In- clusive Classrooms. Theory  Into  Practice,  2005. V. 44, no. 3. P. 194–202.
  12. Coolen H. The Meaning of Dwelling Features: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. V. 24. Sus- tainable Urban Areas, 2008.
  13. Duran-Narucki V. School building  condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2008. V. 28. P. 278–286.
  14. Erkilic M., Durak S. Tolerable and inclusive learn- ing spaces: an evaluation of policies and speci- fications for physical environments that promote inclusion in Turkish Primary Schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2013. V. 17, no. 5. P. 462–479.
  15. Graham L. J., Harwood V. Developing capabili- ties for social inclusion: engaging diversity through inclusive school communities... International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2011. V.15, no.1.
  16. Greeno J. G. Gibson’s affordances. Psychologi- cal Review, 1994. V. 101. P. 336–342.
  17. Horelli L. Constructing a theoretical framework for environmental child-friendliness. Children, Youth and Environments, 2007. V. 17. № 4. P. 267–292.
  18. Horowitz M. J., Duff D. F., Stratton L. O. Body- buffer zone. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964. P. 651–656.
  19. Kytta M. Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and ru- ral villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of En- vironmental Psychology, 2002. V. 22. P. 109–123.
  20. Kytta M. The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordan- ces as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2004. V. 24. P. 179–198.
  21. Lloyd С. Removing  barriers  to  achievement: A strategy for inclusion or exclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2008. V. 12, no. 2.
  22. Maxwell L. E., Chmielewski E. J. Environmental personalization and elementary school children’s self-esteem. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2008. V. 28. P. 143–153.
  23. Pivik J. R. The perspective of children and youth: How different stakeholders identify architectural bar- riers for inclusion in schools. Journal of Environmen- tal Psychology, 2010. V. 30. P. 510–517.
  24. Porter J., Daniels H., Martin S. Testing of Disabi- lity Identification Tool for Schools. Research Report DFE-RR025, 2010 [Electronic resource]. URL:https:/ RSG/AllPublications/Page1/DFE-RR025.
  25. Sommer R. Studies in personal space. Socio- metry, 1959. V. 22. P. 281– 294.
  26. Sutton Sh. E., Susan P. K. Children as partners in neighborhood placemaking: lessons from intergene- rational design charrettes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2002. V. 22. P. 171–189.
  27. Weinstein C. S., Woolfolk A. E. The classroom setting as a source of expectations about teachers and pupils. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1981, no. 1. P. 117–129.
  28. Weinstein L. Social schemata of emotionally dis- turbed boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965. V. 70. P. 457–61.
  29. Young K. S. Physical and social organization of space in a combined credential program: implica- tions for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education. V. 12, no. 5–6. P. 477–495.

Information About the Authors

N. S. Dmitrieva, e-mail:

Sofya K. Nartova-Bochaver, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Laboratory for the Psychology of Salutogenic Environment, Department of Psychology, HSE University, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 3158
Previous month: 11
Current month: 4


Total: 1046
Previous month: 5
Current month: 0