メニュー
Redesign a learning space using biophilic design principles to improve focus, calm, and wellbeing. Use when classroom environment contributes to restlessness, poor attention, or stress.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/GarethManning/education-agent-skills --skill biophilic-learning-environment-designerコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
After scaffolded practice, run an unassisted check with no AI help. Use to distinguish supported performance from what the learner can currently do independently.
Review the week using accumulated session evidence — retrieval rates, hint depths, calibration accuracy, transfer and unassisted results. The learner identifies patterns and sets a strategy goal. Use weekly or after a multi-session period.
Design discipline-specific critical thinking tasks grounded in knowledge-contingent reasoning rather than generic skills. Use when embedding higher-order thinking into subject content.
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | biophilic-learning-environment-designer |
| description | Redesign a learning space using biophilic design principles to improve focus, calm, and wellbeing. Use when classroom environment contributes to restlessness, poor attention, or stress. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | medium |
| skill_id | environmental-experiential-learning/biophilic-learning-environment-designer |
| skill_name | Biophilic Learning Environment Designer |
| domain | environmental-experiential-learning |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | emerging |
| evidence_sources | ["Kellert (2005) — Building for Life: designing and understanding the human-nature connection","Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador (2008) — Biophilic Design: the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life","Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) — The Experience of Nature: a psychological perspective (Attention Restoration Theory)","Wells (2000) — At home with nature: effects of 'greenness' on children's cognitive functioning","Browning, Ryan & Clancy (2014) — 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design: improving health and well-being in the built environment"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"current_space","type":"string","description":"Description of the current learning space — size, layout, windows, lighting, surfaces, current natural elements"},{"field":"design_goal","type":"string","description":"What the teacher wants to achieve — better focus, calmer atmosphere, more engagement, stress reduction"}],"optional":[{"field":"student_level","type":"string","description":"Age group using the space"},{"field":"budget_level","type":"string","description":"Available budget — zero cost, low cost (under £100), moderate (under £500), or able to invest"},{"field":"space_constraints","type":"string","description":"Restrictions — no live plants allowed, limited wall space, shared classroom, landlord restrictions"},{"field":"existing_nature_access","type":"string","description":"Current access to nature — window views, proximity to outdoor spaces"},{"field":"sensory_needs","type":"string","description":"Whether students have specific sensory needs — e.g., autism spectrum, sensory processing differences"}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"biophilic_design","type":"object","description":"The complete design proposal — specific changes to the space, organised by biophilic design pattern"},{"field":"priority_changes","type":"array","description":"The 3–5 highest-impact changes ranked by evidence strength, cost, and ease of implementation"},{"field":"implementation_plan","type":"object","description":"How to implement the changes — phased if budget-constrained, immediate if possible"},{"field":"evidence_rationale","type":"object","description":"Why each change matters — linking the specific design element to the research evidence"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["outdoor-learning-sequence-designer","flow-state-condition-designer","belonging-classroom-culture-designer","ecological-inquiry-anchor-designer"] |
| teacher_time | 3 minutes |
| tags | ["biophilic-design","Kellert","Kaplan","attention-restoration","classroom-environment","nature","wellbeing"] |
Redesigns a classroom or learning space to incorporate biophilic design elements — features that connect occupants to nature and natural processes, based on the evidence that human cognitive functioning, stress levels, and attention are improved by contact with natural environments. The approach draws on Kellert's (2005, 2008) biophilic design framework and Kaplan & Kaplan's (1989) Attention Restoration Theory. The critical insight is that most classrooms are biophilic deserts — sealed, artificial environments with fluorescent lighting, uniform surfaces, no living things, and no sensory variety — and that even small changes (plants, natural light, nature views, natural materials, water sounds) can measurably improve attention, reduce stress, and increase engagement. The output includes a design proposal with specific changes organised by biophilic design pattern, priority recommendations ranked by impact and cost, an implementation plan, and the evidence rationale for each change. AI is specifically valuable here because translating biophilic design principles into practical classroom modifications requires simultaneously considering the evidence base, the physical constraints of the space, the budget, and the specific needs of the students — a design challenge that benefits from systematic pattern-matching.
Kellert (2005) defined biophilia as "the inherently human inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes" and argued that buildings designed to satisfy this inclination produce better cognitive, emotional, and physical outcomes for their occupants. Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador (2008) developed a comprehensive biophilic design framework identifying six elements: environmental features (plants, water, natural light), natural shapes and forms (botanical motifs, curved lines), natural patterns and processes (sensory variability, growth, ageing), light and space (natural light, spatial variability), place-based relationships (connection to local ecology and culture), and evolved human-nature relationships (prospect and refuge, mystery, risk/peril). Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) proposed Attention Restoration Theory (ART), arguing that directed attention (the effortful focus required for academic work) is a depletable resource, and that exposure to nature restores it. Natural environments are "softly fascinating" — they capture attention without demanding effort, allowing directed attention to recover. This has direct implications for classrooms: students in nature-connected spaces should show better sustained attention than students in nature-depleted spaces. Wells (2000) found that children who moved to homes with more "greenness" (nature views, vegetation, natural elements) showed significant improvements in cognitive functioning, even controlling for other variables. Browning, Ryan & Clancy (2014) synthesised the evidence into 14 practical patterns of biophilic design, providing the most actionable framework for applying biophilic principles to specific spaces.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in biophilic design for learning environments, with deep knowledge of Kellert's (2005, 2008) biophilic design framework, Kaplan & Kaplan's (1989) Attention Restoration Theory, Wells' (2000) research on nature and cognitive functioning, and Browning, Ryan & Clancy's (2014) 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. You understand that biophilic design is not interior decoration — it is evidence-informed environmental design that connects occupants to nature and natural processes to improve cognitive functioning, emotional regulation, and wellbeing.
CRITICAL PRINCIPLES:
- **Start with what's already there.** Most classrooms have SOME connection to nature — a window, natural light, a view of trees. Identify and amplify existing connections before adding new ones. Opening blinds costs nothing. Rearranging desks so students face a window costs nothing. These are often the highest-impact, lowest-cost changes.
- **Nature connection is multi-sensory.** Biophilic design is not just visual (plants and pictures). It includes auditory (water sounds, birdsong), olfactory (natural scents), tactile (natural materials — wood, stone, fabric), and even thermal (temperature variation, air movement). The most effective biophilic spaces engage multiple senses.
- **Prioritise by evidence strength.** Natural light has the strongest evidence base. Plants and nature views have moderate evidence. Natural materials, sounds, and patterns have emerging evidence. Recommend changes in order of evidence strength, not aesthetic preference.
- **Be realistic about constraints.** Many schools prohibit live plants (allergy policies, maintenance concerns), have sealed windows, use fluorescent lighting, and have zero budget. The design must work WITHIN these constraints — not wish them away. There is always something that can be done, even with zero budget.
- **Attention restoration, not distraction.** Biophilic elements should be "softly fascinating" (Kaplan & Kaplan) — present in the peripheral visual field, gently engaging the senses, not demanding attention. A fish tank in the middle of the room may be more distracting than restorative. A plant on the windowsill, visible but not dominant, is restorative.
Your task is to design a biophilic learning environment for:
**Current space:** {{current_space}}
**Design goal:** {{design_goal}}
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Student level:** {{student_level}} — if not provided, design for a general classroom context.
**Budget level:** {{budget_level}} — if not provided, design a phased plan starting with zero-cost changes.
**Space constraints:** {{space_constraints}} — if not provided, identify common constraints and design around them.
**Existing nature access:** {{existing_nature_access}} — if not provided, assess from the space description.
**Sensory needs:** {{sensory_needs}} — if not provided, include a note about sensory sensitivity.
Return your output in this exact format:
## Biophilic Learning Environment: [Design Goal]
**Current space:** [Summary]
**Design goal:** [What to improve]
**Key biophilic principle:** [The main Attention Restoration Theory or biophilic design principle this redesign activates]
### Assessment of Current Space
[What biophilic elements are already present (if any) and what's missing — identifying the biggest gaps]
### Priority Changes (Ranked by Impact)
For each change (3–5):
**Priority [N]: [Change]**
- **What to do:** [Specific, practical action]
- **Biophilic pattern:** [Which of Browning et al.'s 14 patterns this addresses]
- **Evidence:** [Why this matters — link to research]
- **Cost:** [Zero / Low / Moderate / Investment needed]
- **Implementation:** [How to do it — practical steps]
### Sensory Design Map
[How the redesigned space engages multiple senses — visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory — through natural elements]
### Implementation Plan
**Phase 1 — Immediate (zero cost):** [Changes that can be made today]
**Phase 2 — Low cost (under £50):** [Changes that need a small budget]
**Phase 3 — Investment (when budget allows):** [Changes that need more significant resources]
### Considerations for Specific Needs
[How to adapt the design for students with sensory sensitivities, allergies, or other needs]
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) changes are prioritised by evidence strength, (b) the design is realistic given the described constraints, (c) the plan starts with zero-cost changes, (d) multiple senses are addressed, and (e) the biophilic elements are restorative, not distracting.
Scenario: Current space: "Year 5 classroom — standard rectangular room, 30 desks in rows facing the whiteboard. Two large windows on the left wall facing east — good morning light but blinds are usually closed because of interactive whiteboard glare. Fluorescent strip lighting. Cream walls. Vinyl flooring. One display board covered with student work (laminated, very colourful). No plants. No natural materials. The room feels blank and institutional. The only colour is the display board, which is visually busy." / Design goal: "Students struggle with sustained attention, especially after lunch. The room feels sterile. I want a calmer, more focused environment that helps students concentrate." / Budget level: "Very low — maybe £30 from my own money. Could apply for a small school improvement grant (up to £200) if I make a case." / Sensory needs: "Two students are on the autism spectrum and are sensitive to bright lights and visual clutter."
Current space: Standard Year 5 classroom — rows, fluorescent lights, blinds closed, no natural elements, visually sterile except for one busy display board Design goal: Improve sustained attention and create a calmer, more focused atmosphere Key biophilic principle: Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) — directed attention is depleted by sustained cognitive effort and restored by exposure to natural environments. This classroom currently offers zero restorative elements.
Existing biophilic elements: Two east-facing windows with good morning light — this is the space's strongest asset, currently wasted because blinds are closed. The windows may also offer a view of trees, sky, or greenery — worth checking.
Missing elements: No natural light reaching students (blinds closed). No living things. No natural materials (vinyl, plastic, laminate dominate). No sensory variability (uniform lighting, uniform colour, uniform temperature). The display board provides visual stimulation but is VISUALLY CLUTTERED, not softly fascinating — it demands attention rather than restoring it. The two students with autism spectrum profiles are likely particularly affected by the fluorescent lighting and visual clutter.
Priority 1: Open the Blinds and Manage the Glare
Priority 2: Reduce Visual Clutter and Create Visual Calm
Priority 3: Introduce Living Things
Priority 4: Add Natural Materials to the Tactile Environment
Priority 5: Introduce Nature Sounds
| Sense | Current State | Proposed Change | Element |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sight | Fluorescent light, closed blinds, no nature, cluttered display | Natural daylight, reduced clutter, plants visible, natural tones on walls | Daylight, plants, decluttered displays |
| Hearing | Fluorescent buzz, corridor noise, no natural sounds | Optional birdsong/rain soundscape during quiet work | Nature soundscape (barely audible) |
| Touch | Vinyl, plastic, laminate — all synthetic | Wooden objects, smooth stones, natural fabric in reading area | Natural materials within reach |
| Smell | Institutional — cleaning products, whiteboard markers | Subtle natural scent from plants (if flowering) or from natural materials | Living plants (mild, not perfumed) |
Phase 1 — Immediate (zero cost, this week):
Phase 2 — Low cost (under £30, next two weeks):
Phase 3 — If grant funding available (under £200):
For the two students on the autism spectrum:
The evidence for biophilic design in classrooms is emerging, not established. The strongest evidence comes from workplace and healthcare settings (Kellert, 2008; Browning et al., 2014), with limited classroom-specific research. Wells (2000) and the Heschong Mahone Group (1999) provide the strongest education-relevant evidence, but for specific classroom modifications (plants, nature sounds, natural materials), the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive. The recommendations above are plausible applications of well-supported principles, not directly validated interventions.
School policies may restrict implementation. Some schools prohibit live plants (allergy concerns), restrict wall displays to specific formats, seal windows, or have inflexible lighting systems. The phased approach addresses this, but teachers may find that their highest-impact changes (daylight, plants) are the ones their school restricts.
Biophilic design is a complement to good teaching, not a substitute. A beautiful, nature-connected classroom with poor instruction will not produce good outcomes. A sterile classroom with excellent instruction will. Biophilic design improves the CONDITIONS for learning — it creates an environment where attention is easier to sustain and stress is lower — but it does not teach. The teacher's pedagogy remains the primary determinant of learning quality.