With
an endorsement of fascination in the process of interior innovations, radically
alter the way we are able to carry out simple daily tasks has driven me to
discuss whether the global issue of aesthetically pleasing buildings have a
major effect on achievement in classrooms or whether other factors such as,
engagement of staff, air quality, lighting, temperature and foreign sound have
a more significant influence.
Psychologists, Talton and Simpson (1987)
comment that ‘The classroom is the basic structural unit of our educational system’
[4], the nature of the classroom is clearly affected by the school design
and objectives adopted at the school level. There is reason to expect the environment
to affect behaviour: Maslow and Mintz (1956) found that participants in an
‘ugly’[4] room made significantly less positive judgements about
photographs than did the participants doing the same task in a ‘beautiful’ room
.However, it is difficult to generalise from these observations to identify
requirements for a school classroom. Maslow and Mintz’ findings were reliable
to an extent because the same procedure may be repeated in order to reconfirm
results.
In a pilot study by the University of Salford and
architects, Nightingale Associates, it was found that the ‘classroom
environment can affect a child’s academic progress over a year by as much as
25%’.[1] The year-long pilot study was carried out in seven Blackpool
LEA primary schools in 2014. Data was collected from’ 751 pupils’[1],
such as their performance level in math, reading and writing at the start and
end of an academic year. During this study the holistic classroom environment
was evaluated, taking into account different design parameters such as
classroom orientation, natural light and noise, temperature and air quality.
Other issues such as flexibility of space, storage facilities and organisation,
as well as use of colour were evaluated. Results communicate that, ‘Notably,
73% of the variation in pupil performance driven at the class level can be
explained by the building environment factors measured in this study’. [1]
This highlights the importance of focusing on the design and aesthetics in working
environments. Moreover, this may also apply to work places all around the world
alongside schools as demonstrated by the atmosphere at Google headquarters,
where employees are intentionally motivated by the aesthetics of the building
leading to an efficient and energized workforce. The pilot study was
commissioned by THiNK, the research and development team at Nightingale Associates
increasing the reliability of the study. The results have also been accepted in
an international peer reviewed journal: [P.S.Barrett, Y. Zhang, J. Moffat and
K.Kobbacy (2012). [3]
‘The
science of designing learning environments is currently remarkably
under-developed’, argued architect and CABE Commissioner Emeritus the late
Richard Feilden in 2004. [8] In a similar vein, Professor Stephen
Heppell argued at an expert seminar that ‘traditionally, we have designed for
productivity, processing large numbers of children through the effective use of
buildings, designing a room for learning is very complex... What is needed is a
new approach and new solutions for school design to reflect the changing needs
of learning in the 21st century’. [5] As Professor David Hopkins,
the Education Minister’s Chief Advisor on School Standards, argued at the same
seminar: ‘Schools today have the responsibility for personalised learning and
its design’. [7] Overall, the arguments put forward in supporting
aesthetics effecting achievement, primarily suggests that working environments
should be designed in ways which adapt and are suited for this day in age in
order to maintain engagement from students.
It
has been pointed out that school buildings and classroom layouts vary globally in
ways that are related to understandings and philosophies of education as well
as to material resources (Alexander, Culture
and Pedagogy:2000) [6] .From a study of 30 primary
schools in five countries, Alexander reports some interesting consistencies
such as the much more elaborate displays of children’s finished work in the
American and British schools (op.ci,p.184) [6] ; the arrangement of the children in
rows of individuals in India, rows of pairs in Russia and around work ‘centres’
in the USA (p.333-334) [6] ; and the contrast of ‘a great deal of
light’ in all the Russian classrooms with some British and American classrooms
requiring ‘artificial light throughout the day’. (p.185) [6].
However, research specifically concerned with the effect of the learning environment
on students are carried out in Western Europe and, particularly, in the USA.
The subjectivity behind the global issue of whether it’s the aesthetics of the
classroom impacting achievement or other factors such as light intensity and
noise disruption effecting the concentration and in turn efforts put into work
by pupils, differs across the globe due to the influence of cultures and
traditions.
Some may argue that other factors have a
more of a major effect on achievement than the aesthetics of a classroom. There
appears to be a strong link between effective engagement with staff, students and
the success of environmental change in having an impact on behaviour and
achievement all round. Teachers’ attitudes and behaviour are vitally important
to the use made of space. This challenges the idea of aesthetics being a major
impact on achievement due to the view on teaching morale being more important. PricewaterhouseCoopers
(2000) [9] consider staff morale to be of key importance while Berry
(2002) [9] found there were improvements in attitude among all users
after a school was physically improved. The idea of trying to affect the nature
of the school environment is referred to by a number of writers. Cooper,
himself architecturally trained, warns that ‘Those who offer guidance on the
planning of buildings tend to assume that there is some necessary relationship
between the design of a building and the behaviour of those who occupy it’
(1981, p.125) [9]. Furthermore, in regards to the involvement of
children in design is significant in overcoming the conservatism of many
adults. Thus, this suggests the involvement of students in designing a
classroom would result in an increase of engagement and achievement. However,
this may be unreliable evidence due to it depending on the students and their
mind-set towards their education individually.
There is consistent
evidence in regards to the effects of basic physical variables such as air
quality, temperature and noise on learning. Earthman (2004) [11]
rates temperature, heating and air quality as the most important individual
elements for student achievement. Two psychological studies (Young et al, 2003;
Buckley et al, 2004)[2] mention the importance of these issues in
reports addressing the needs of particular US states’ schools, while Fisher
(2001) [12] and Schneider
(2002) [2] similarly rate these factors as likely to affect student
behaviour and achievement. The studies offer some reasonably clear findings but
also some disagreement. Earlier work, in the USA, emphasised comfortable temperatures
and advocated an increased use of air-conditioning. There has been questioning
about maximum comfortable temperatures (Wong & Khoo, 2003)[13], relating
back to which factors have a major impact on achievement in classrooms to be an
international strive that may require dissimilar solutions and responses for
different countries.
 |
| [This photograph is taken from The Open Plan school (IDEA, 1970), perhaps indicative of the difficulties of open-plan education where ‘classes shared little beyond the vast open area and high noise level’. (Rivlin & Wolfe, 1985, p.177.)][10] |
Furthermore, it is prominent that air
conditioning, ventilation and heating systems are found to contribute quite
distinctly to the level of classroom noise (Shield & Dockrell, 2004)[14]
which would have an automatic effect on the concentration of students and thus
achievement. The importance of ventilation in educational establishments
continues to be emphasised (Kimmel et al, 2000[15]; Khattar et al,
2003[16]), while the inadequacies of indoor air in schools continue
to be reported (Lee & Chang, 2000[17]; Kimmel et al, 2000[15];
Khattar et al, 2003[16]) and linked to ill-health (Ahman et al, 2000)[18]
which would result in students being unable to participate in studies at
all. It is evident that the demands of clean air might come in to conflict with
the teacher’s desire to provide a comfortable, cozy and welcoming classroom,
resulting in designers being pressured to prioritise factors other than
aesthetics to please the main users of the classroom (the students).
It is extremely
difficult to come to firm conclusions about the impact of learning environments
because of the multi-faceted nature of environments themselves. Cultural and geographical
differences also highlight the importance of sensitivity to context. For these
reasons it is very difficult to make judgements about which areas are ‘worth’
focussing on in order to maximize achievements of pupils. There is clear
evidence that extremes of environmental elements (for example, poor ventilation
or excessive noise) have negative effects on students and teachers and that
improving these elements has significant benefits. My evaluation suggests that
the aesthesis in working environments in this case, classrooms do have a major
impact on achievement along with other factors; specifically engagement between
pupils and their teachers. I believe to involve the users of the classroom in
the process of design is an efficient way of building a healthy attachment
between students and their working environment which would motivate students to
achieve to their maximum potential. Personally, from my secondary school
experience at Loxford School of Science & Technology, I was able to
identify the impact of an aesthetically pleasing building and specifically
classrooms on students’ behaviour, conduct and achievement. A new and adapted
environment enhances the idea of a new beginning for many pupils encouraging
them to strive for success.
 |
[The photograph [19] above shows Loxford School’s old building (in 2006). The aesthetics of the building has been significantly changed since 2010, indicated by the photograph [19] below.Along with the aesthetics of the classrooms and leisure areas being modified, uniform pupils’ attitude and staff morale was also targeted in order to impact achievement. The new building signifies the transgression for a new start allowing students to feel part of a new era.]
 |
Research Essay; Bibliography:
1. University of Salford in Manchester `Study proves
classroom design really does matter’ (November 2012)
2.
J Buckley, M Schneider and Y Shang, LAUSD
School Facilities and Academic Performance. (25.8.04.)
[P.S.Barrett, Y. Zhang, J. Moffat and K.Kobbacy (2012)
4.
Christopher
B. Smith, M.ED., Avon-Maitland District School Board,
Ontario, Canada
Anthony N. Ezeife, Ph.D., Professor of Math/Science Education Faculty of Education University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Anthony N. Ezeife, Ph.D., Professor of Math/Science Education Faculty of Education University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Talton
and Simpson (1987) & Maslow and Mintz (1956)
5.
CABE/RIBA, 21st Century Schools: Learning environments of
the future, (7.9.2004)
6.
Alexander, R. (2000) Culture
and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in primary Education (USA, UK,
Australia, Blackwell Publishing).
8.
Richard Feilden, Architect and CABE Commissioner Emeritus (2004).
9.
I Cooper, The Politics of Education and Architectural
Design: The instructive example of British primary education, British
Educational Research Journal, (1981: pg, 125).
10.
L G Rivlin and M
Wolfe, Institutional Settings in Children's Lives, Wiley, (1985).
11.
G I Earthman, Prioritization of 31 Criteria for School
Building Adequacy, (2004).
12.
K Fisher, Building Better Outcomes: The impact of school
infrastructure on student outcomes and behaviour, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs (Australia), (2001).
13.
N H Wong and S S Khoo, Thermal Comfort in Classrooms in the
Tropics, Energy and Buildings, (2003).
14.
B Shield and J Dockrell, External and Internal Noise
Surveys of London Primary Schools, Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, (2004).
15.
R Kimmel, Pupils' and Teachers' Health Disorders after
Renovation of Classrooms in a Primary School, Gesundheitswesen, (2000).
16.
M Khattar, Cool & Dry - Dual-path approach for a
Florida school, Ashrae Journal, (2003).
17.
S Lee and M Chang, Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality
Investigation at Schools in Hong Kong. Chemosphere, (2000).
18.
M Ahman, Improved Health After Intervention in a School
with Moisture Problems, Indoor Air, (2000).
19.
Loxford School of
Science & Technology. Photographs of the building in (2006 & 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment