See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292667318

Research based design of an elementary school

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

6 738

1 author:

Henry Sanoff
North Carolina State University
55 PUBLICATIONS   1,394 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working with a colleague on the translation of Design Games into Spanish View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Sanoff on 26 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research Based School Design

Teachers are much more influenced by the physical environment than they realize.
Malcolm Seabourne (1991), a historian of school building in England suggests that the
building made the teaching method. The separate classroom was a sign that teachers
were trusted to be independent and had greater privacy. The classroom was designed
and built to represent and shape a particular form of teaching behavior. The way a school
is designed to work reflects social ideas about institutions and the education these
institutions are created to further (Grosvenor I., Lawn M., & Rousmaniere K. 1999). The
shape of spaces, furniture arrangements, and signs are physical cues that transmit silent
messages, and both teachers and students will respond. These environmental messages
stimulate movement, call attention to some things, but not others, encourage involvement,
and invite students to hurry or move calmly. This environmental influence is continuous,
and how well it communicates with the users will depend on how well the environment is
planned. Classroom arrangement is not a mere technicality, or a part of the teacher’s
style. It reflects assumptions about the teaching-learning process and its outcomes.

The usual classroom seating arrangement of rows headed by a teacher at the front
usually assumes that all information comes from the teacher. This arrangement assumes
a teacher-centered classroom where the learning process depends upon the teacher’s
direction. Considering the new thinking about how students learn, Halstead (1992)
envisioned the classroom of tomorrow where classrooms will be like studios where
students will have their own workspace. In addition, there would be workspaces for
cooperative learning by groups of different sizes, quiet private areas for one-on-one
sessions, and places where students can work independently. Teachers need to learn
how to question the classroom setting in a constructive way, looking for solutions and
feeling in control over changeable features. Taking control would permit the teacher to
experiment with classroom modifications to determine what works and what does not
work, since each teacher and each group of students will be different. The ability for
teachers to control the classroom environment leads to feelings of accomplishment and
independence, whereas a lack of control may result in helplessness. Awareness can
make a teacher sensitive to subtle aspects of the environment and bring to light the
adverse effects of a poorly organized environment. The goal in developing classroom
awareness is to reach a new understanding of how the environment supports students’

81
activities and nurtures their development. Although transaction theories of student/teacher
participatory interaction have been discussed in the educational literature for decades
(Dewey J.1916; Friere P. 1970; Krebs A.H.1982), more recently there is research
describing a correlation between student-teacher participatory interaction (STPI) and
student motivation to participate (SMP) in the classroom (Dormody T.J. & Sutphin
H.D.1991). Similarly, if students experience the classroom as a supportive place where
there is a sense of belonging, they will tend to participate more fully in the process of
learning (Brophy J.1987). The idea of personalized learning environments, which has
generated immense interest in the design of classroom clusters, house plans, and school-
within-school settings has magnified the role student commons can play in a school’s
overall design, serving as a hub for an academic wing or providing a space for alternative
teaching strategies. The following case study illustrates several methods of engaging
students, teachers, parents and the school board members in the design process.

The new Gibsonville Elementary School, located in Guilford County, North Carolina is the
result of a county-wide school bond, which provided funds for the replacement of a
partially condemned historic main building and several small deteriorating classroom
buildings. Guilford County school officials selected The Adams Group Architects, Sharon
Graeber and Henry Sanoff due to their previous experience of engaging the school
community in the design process. At the first teacher/architect/client introductory meeting,
teachers expressed the desire to achieve a small intimate scale in their new school. The
new 750-student school will include pre-kindergarten through 5th grade classrooms.

The initial step in the design process aimed at identifying students and teachers ideas
regarding key features of the new school. By completing the phrase, I wish my school; a
summary of students’ desires included a colorful environment, extensive use of the
outdoors and garden areas, while the teachers were concerned about space for learning
centers, space for tutors, and an environment that was open and inviting. Because the
most important element of the school was the classroom, a workshop conducted by the
architects focused on classroom design. The teachers who attended were provided with
drawings of six different classroom arrangements developed from a study of classrooms
by the design team, with each arrangement drawn at the same scale (Figure 38).

82
Figure 38: Classroom arrangement alternatives

Teachers were organized into four-person groups to encourage discussion and idea
sharing and evaluated the classroom arrangements (Figure 39). They identified those
classroom arrangements allowing for a variety of learning opportunities, the best
arrangement for a variety of teaching methods, variations in seating arrangements,
teachers ability to move around and interact with students, and offering a sense of

83
belonging. After considerable discussion, the teachers selected the "L-shape" classroom
arrangement as providing the most flexibility in managing space and setting up learning
centers. The L-shape was also judged best for allowing a variety of teaching methods,
including team teaching, and encouraging small groups to work independently. Teachers
agreed that the “L” shape, because of its geometry encourages higher teacher movement
than more traditional classroom shapes. Increased teacher movement in the classroom
results in more teacher-student contact and consequently a more positive student attitude
towards school, which can lead to enhanced learning.

Figure 39: Teachers workshop

A second workshop focused on the location of the new school on the 20-acre site,
particularly since students as well as members of the community used an existing
gymnasium. Access to the gymnasium, existing traffic patterns and the use of existing
nature trails suggested several possible building locations. Based on discussions with the
teachers three alternative site plans were developed whereby teachers rated each
according to such criteria as the preservation of the condemned but historically significant
existing school building, preservation of the trees and natural site conditions, safe traffic
patterns and building entrance visibility.

The overall plan consists of five “L” shaped classroom clusters, each containing its own
open courtyard (Figure 40). The design features aimed at enhancing learning resulted
from the participation of students, teachers, and parents in the design process. The

84
classroom, which is the basic unit of the school, was viewed as a place where students
could work in groups, and engage in different activities simultaneously. Consequently,
earning centers became the focal point of the classroom in an “L” shaped geometry. At the
teachers’ request, the traditional workrooms were replaced by tutoring spaces between
classrooms to accommodate small groups of students to work on projects or to engage in
peer tutoring.

Figure 40: Building floor plan

Another critical design feature is direct access from each classroom to the outdoors
allowing teachers to create outdoor classrooms that could enhance students’ ecological
awareness (Figure 41). The central courtyard in each classroom cluster is also seen as a
teaching/learning environment. The limited budget did not permit for the development of
the courtyards or the outdoor classrooms, however, during the workshops it was agreed
that the Parent-Teachers Association would take the lead in developing the courtyards,
while the teachers and students would develop their respective outdoor classroom.

85
Figure 41: Typical classroom cluster

Figure 42: Native plants courtyard discussed at teachers’ workshop

During the design development and construction documents phase of the project a
building committee representing teachers, school officials, construction management and
the school board monitored the process through the completed construction of the building

86
in December 2006. Several months after the initial move-in, a courtyard-planning
workshop engaged the teachers in a discussion of variations in courtyard themes and how
they could be integrated into the curriculum. Theme images were developed such as a
rainforest or natives plants (Figure 42) as well as funding approaches that parents and
teachers could explore to implement their ideas.

Post Occupancy Evaluation

After six months of occupancy a post occupancy evaluation (POE) of the completed
building was conducted. The intent was to identify major successes and failures. A seven-
point Likert school building rating scale, which was administered to all the teaching staff,
focused on overall building performance, which included physical features, outdoor areas,
learning environments, social areas, media access, safety and security, and visual
appearance. An analysis of the results using descriptive statistics revealed a high degree
of satisfaction in most categories. Teachers gave a high satisfaction rating to the visual
appearance of the buildings’ interior and exterior. Outdoor learning and play areas, media
and technology access, safety and security also received very high ratings of satisfaction.
Since the courtyards were not landscaped at the time of the POE, teachers expressed
their disappointment. In a discussion following the survey results a surprising
dissatisfaction voiced by the teachers was the unfinished appearance of the building
interior. The building design intentionally revealed the construction and utilities system to
allow the building to be a learning environment for the students, an approach that has
been successfully employed in “green school” design solutions.

A follow-up workshop focused on classroom layout, since the principal observed that
teachers did not organize their classrooms efficiently. The strategy for this workshop was
to assemble the teachers to observe different arrangements proposed by the architects.
When an agreeable arrangement was developed all teachers were provided with plan
drawings of the furniture layout that they could implement (Figure 43).

As the teachers adjust to their new environment it is likely that they will discover features
of the building that could enhance the education program, since the development of the
school building is an ongoing process (Figure 44). Parents and teachers are currently
engaged in fund raising to complete the outdoor areas, which will include involving local
artists and landscape architects.

87
Figure 43: Typical furniture arrangement

Conclusion

Participation in school and community issues places serious demands and responsibilities
upon participants. Although people voluntarily organize to participate in community
projects, the technical complexity of such projects usually requires professional
assistance. In addition to the need to address technical complexity, sound design and
planning principles must be incorporated in the school design process. Without guidance,
community groups may respond only to situations of crisis and may not achieve the goals
that originally united them. The management of participatory efforts is important.

Significant changes in people’s behavior will occur if the persons expected to change
participate in deciding what the change shall be and how it shall be made. Good planning
for community participation requires careful analysis. Although it is critical to examine
goals and objectives in planning for participation, there are various techniques that are
available, each of which performs different functions. In the last several decades, there

88
 Figure 44: Gibsonville Elementary School

have been numerous efforts to accumulate knowledge about various participation

techniques, as well as the function that these techniques perform. Community surveys,
review boards, advisory boards, task forces, neighborhood and community meetings,
public hearings, public information programs, interactive cable TV, have all been used with
varying degrees of success, depending on the effectiveness of the participation plan.
Because community participation is a complex concept, it requires considerable thought to
prepare an effective participation program. The key to providing school facilities that meet
current and future needs in a given community is to constantly scan the environment,
communicate regularly with educators, the community, businesses and policy makers, and
stay aware of current educational, design, and environmental issues. Otherwise, reliance
on "It's always worked in the past," or on "That's how it has always been done" may well
result in the waste of capital resources, dissatisfaction in the community, and reduced
opportunities to optimize instruction and educational outcomes.

89
View publication stats