THIRTY-THREE EDUCATIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
FOR SCHOOLS & COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS
Jeffery A. Lackney, R.A., Ph.D.
Contents
Sponsor
PDF
Introduction
Educational Facility Planning & Design Process Principles
- Maximize Collaboration in School Planning and Design
- Build a Proactive Facility Management Program
- Plan Schools as Neighborhood-Scaled Community Learning Centers
- Plan for Learning to Take Place Directly in the Community
Principles for Site & Building Organization
- Create Smaller Schools
- Respect Contextual Compatibility While Providing Design Diversity
- Consider Home as a Template for School
- Meander Circulation while Ensuring Supervision
- Design for Safe Schools
Principles for Primary Educational Space
- Cluster Instructional Areas
- Provide Space for Sharing Instructional Resources
- Design for a Variety of Learning Groups and Spaces
- Keep Class Sizes Small
- Provide Resource-Rich Well-Defined Activity Pockets
- Integrate Early Childhood Education into the Community School
- Provide a Home Base for Every Learner
- Regard Teachers as Professionals
- Provide Studios to Support Project-based Learning
- Encourage Administrative Leadership by Decentralizing Administrative Space
Principles for Shared School and Community Facilities
- Establish a Community Forum
- Allow for Community Conferencing Space
- Create Privacy Niches
- Weave Together Virtual and Physical Learning Spaces
- Provide Opportunities for Job Training
Community Spaces
- Provide Parent Information Centers
- Provide Health Care Service Centers
Character of All Spaces
- Design Places with Respect for Scale and Developmental Need
- Maximize Natural and Full-Spectrum Lighting
- Design Healthy Buildings
- Design for Appropriate Acoustics
Site Design and Outdoor Learning Spaces
- Allow for Transitional Spaces Between Indoor and Outdoor Spaces
- Establish a Variety of Outdoor Learning Environments
- Separate Children and Pedestrians from Vehicles and Service
This research is sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF).
Created in 1997, the NCEF is an information resource for people who plan, design, build,
operate and maintain K-12 schools. For more information about the Clearinghouse see
www.edfacilities.org .
This document is also available in PDF format.
Click here to view or right-click
and select 'Save Target/Link As...' to download. PDF files are viewable with
Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The intent of this document is to provide a framework of educational design principles from
which educators and design professionals can structure the content of their educational
facility development process, from the earliest strategic and educational planning
right through to design, construction, occupancy and facility management.
The body of knowledge concerning well-designed learning environments is contained in the
following thirty-three educational design principles. These principles are derived from a
variety of sources: from the reflective practice of educators and design professionals to
the empirical research of environmental psychologists and educational researchers. Each
educational design principle takes as an underlying premise that all learning environments
should be learner-centered, developmentally- and age-appropriate, safe, comfortable,
accessible, flexible, and equitable in addition to being cost effective. These
premises run through all principles and should be understood to moderate the
appropriateness of each principle in practice.
The ultimate goal is to optimize the school and its surrounding community as an effective
setting for learning. No single school building process will be able to address and implement
all of these principles; some may not apply to the situation, others might not be appropriate
due to budgetary limitations. Certainly, if school size research suggests be build learner
groupings of 100, building a school this small may not be cost effective ñ other principles
may need to be employed in combination to meet this principle, such as the principle of
creating schools within schools. The objective in using this document as a design guide
is to consider as many of these principles as are appropriate.
The principles are divided into educational facility planning and design process principles,
principles for site and building organization, principles for primary educational space,
principles for shared school and community facilities, community spaces, principles related
to the character of all spaces, and principles related to site design and outdoor learning spaces.
Educational Design Principle No. 1:
Maximize Collaboration in School Planning and Design
In order for an educational facility to be successful in meeting the needs of learners,
a process of planning, design and construction must be followed. As such, the process by
which a building is conceived can be long and complex. For these reasons, the planning
process must be itself planned carefully based on clear project objectives. From the
very beginning of strategic facility planning process one main objective should be to
obtain multiple perspectives while exploring all potential problems and opportunities.
Gaining this wider perspective can avert many roadblocks to implementation later in the
process when financial resources are being committed. Involve a wide spectrum of
representatives from the community during the planning and design of a school or
community center. In addition to school administrative decision-makers, encourage the
active participation of parents, business and community leaders, teachers and even
students when possible. Recommendations from this group should be taken seriously ñ
this group represents the broader community interest.
Providing broad community participation can be a difficult and frustrating process. It
can also provide a variety of benefits. Authentic participation can assist in building
community support for the passage of bond issues as well as give the community a sense of
ownership in the process and product. Through broad community input, issues can be
quickly uncovered, while the structure of the planning process can provide a means
to proactively address those issues. In addition, participation contributes the
educational process of the entire community by initiating and encouraging a dialogue
between the school and its surrounding community. Finally, participation may defuse
politically motivated issues and lay the groundwork for constructive dialogue between
normally divisive groups in the community.
Brubaker, W.C. (1998). Planning and designing schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graves, B. E. (1993). School ways: The planning and design of Americaís schools. New York:
Architectural Record/McGraw-Hill.
Fielding, R. (1999, August). Planning the learning community: An interview with Concordia's
Steven Bingler.
www.designshare.com/ Research/ Bingler/ LearningCommunity1.htm
Jilk, B. (1997, July). The design-down process: An alternative to the traditional education
specification process for defining learning environments. Council of Educational Facility
Planners International (CEFPI) Issue Track.
www.cefpi.com
Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities: The impact and role of the physical environment
of the school on teaching, learning and educational outcomes. Johnson Controls Monograph
Series Report R94-4. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research.
Sanoff, H. (1994). School design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
For more information on maximizing collaboration in school planning and design visit
the following site:
www.edfacilities.org
Educational Design Principle No. 2:
Build a Proactive Facility Management Program
Design a proactive facility management program during the planning phase of a project
to anticipate facility problems, rather than reacting to problems when they occur.
The facilities management process should be an integral part of the school design
to assure long term and optimal use of the facility. Appropriate design decisions
can support custodial care, ease of maintenance of school grounds and building
equipment, materials and surfaces, as well as support the flexible scheduling of
space for future programs. The schools we build now will be with us for the next
fifty years. Monitoring the use of a facility over the life span of that building
will be critical to optimizing its use.
Management of the facility if often thought to include the maintenance and operations of
the ìphysical plantî ñ the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, power, security and other
building systems as well as custodial and maintenance programs and operations. However,
just as important is the management of the use of the educational facility for
daily educational activity and organization ñ scheduling activities, assigning
program space, effective utilization of space, adequacy of the type and size
of instructional space and the ambient qualities of the environment for learning.
This second form of facility management is often neglected. One strategy is to
appoint a site-based planning team to monitor the diverse aspects of a comprehensive
facility management program to assist the school administrator in management decisions.
Butterfield, E. (1999, July). School renovation and the importance of maintenance:
Q&A with Charles Boney, Jr.
www.designshare.com/ Research/ Boney/ Renovation1.htm
Lackney, J.A. (1996). Quality in school environments: A multiple case study of environmental
quality assessment in five elementary schools in the Baltimore City Public Schools from
an action research perspective. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. UMI Dissertation Services No. 9717142.
OECD (1996). Making better use of school buildings. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme
on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1995). Schools for cities. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on Educational
Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
For further information on building a proactive facility management program visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/custodial_staffing.cfm
www.edfacilities.org/rl/energy.cfm
www.edfacilities.org/rl/iaq.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 3:
Plan Schools as Neighborhood-Scaled Community Learning Centers
Plan for the traditional school building to be transformed into a community learning
center. Interlace residential neighborhoods, the larger community and school
organizations, functions and facilities. Allow shared school and community
functions into a cohesive facility or network of closely adjacent facilities.
Locate and site the community learning center in a well-defined neighborhood.
This will provide opportunities for children and parents to walk to the school
and provide an identity for that community. Facilities that are close to the
neighborhoods of the children they serve provide opportunities for children to
walk and bike with the added public health benefit of increasing their physical
activity, rather than relying on more costly modes of transportation. Allow schools
to become a beacon within the community for those seeking opportunities for enrichment.
Provide a variety of services, at flexible schedules, accessible by people of different
backgrounds. Create an environment that draws the community to the school and increases
interaction. The center will provide facilities accessible for the entire community,
creating an increased involvement and awareness of the educational process. Finally,
school facilities that act as true community centers serve the broader societal goals
of providing the setting for meaningful civic participation and engagement at the
local level.
Decker, L.E. & Romney, V.A. (1994, August). Educational restructuring and the community
education process. A special report of the National Coalition for Community Education.
Fairfax, VA: National Community Education Association.
Fanning/Howey Associates. (1995). Community use of schools: Facility design perspectives.
Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc.
Hodgin, P.A. (1998, January). District wide planning: Schools as community resources.
AIArchitect.
www.e-architect.com/ pia/ cae/ distwide.asp
OECD (1996). Making better use of school buildings. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on Educational
Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1995). Schools for cities. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on Educational Building.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999, April). Design principles for planning schools as
centers of community.
www.edfacilities.org
Warner, C. & Curry, M. (1997). Everybodyís house: The schoolhouse, best techniques for connecting
home, school and community. Corwin Press.
NSBN. (2000, January). The development of educational facilities through joint use mechanisms.
New Schools/Better Neighborhoods Joint Use Working Group.
www.nsbn.org
For further resources on Design Schools as Neighborhood-Scaled Community Learning Centers
visit the following site:
www.edfacilities.org/rl/community_use.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 4:
Plan for Learning to Take Place Directly in the Community
A variety of social and economic factors have created an environment in which many educators
recognize that learning happens all the time and in many different places. The school
building is just one place learning takes place. While the school building is being
seen more as a community center, the idea of embracing the whole community as a
learning environment has evolved in a complementary fashion. Educational programs
can, and are taking advantage of educational resources in urban, suburban and rural
settings alike. Formal educational program partnerships have been established with
museums, zoos, libraries, other public institutions, as well as in local business
workplace settings.
In addition, increasing costs of public spending for education has encouraged the idea of
sharing the school and community facilities to prevent cost duplication of similar facilities
such as gymnasiums, auditoriums, performance spaces, and conferencing facilities.
Sharing facilities can also realize long-term maintenance and operating cost savings
over the life of the building. Sharing school facilities with a variety of community
organizations may fostering meaningful inter-organizational partnerships that can
strengthen educational opportunities for learners.
Educational Design Principle No. 5:
Create Smaller Schools
Limit the size of learner groupings to 60-75 students in pre-school, 200-400 students
in elementary school, 400-600 in middle school and not more than 600-800 students
in secondary school. If a community learning center must house more than 75
preschoolers, 400 elementary or middle-school students, or more than 800
high-school students, decentralize the facility (both administratively and
architecturally) into a village, campus, or multi-faceted building comprised
of a series of interconnected schools-within-a-school for a maximum of 400
students. Another strategy for reducing the scale of educational facilities
is to distribute and network various school and community functions throughout
the neighborhood in both new and existing sites.
The research community has known for some time that small schools (100-150), in comparison
with large schools (over 2,000) offer students greater opportunities to participate
in extracurricular activities and to exercise leadership roles (Barker & Gump, 1964).
In particular, participation in school activities, student satisfaction, number of
classes taken, community employment, and participation in social organizations have
all been found to be greater in small schools relative to large schools. In addition,
small schools, on the order of 500 or less, have lower incidence of crime levels and
less serious student misconduct. Research suggests a negative relationship between
math and verbal ability tests and elementary school size controlling for socio-economic
differences. Additionally, smaller elementary schools particularly benefit
African-American students' achievement.
Barker, R. & Gump, P.V. (1964). Big school, small school. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fowler, W.J., Jr. (1992). What do we know about school size? What should we know? Paper presented
to the American Educational Research Association Annual
Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Available from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Garbarino, J. (1980). Some thoughts on school size and its effects on adolescent development.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 19-31.
Howley, C. (1994, June). The academic effectiveness of small-scale schooling (An Update).
ERIC Digest ED372897.
Irmsher, K. (1997). School size. ERIC Digest, Number 113. ED414615 97. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed414615.html
Lashway, L. (1998-99, Winter). School size: Is smaller better? Research
Roundup 15, 2. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
eric.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/W98-99.html
Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV. (ED425049 99)
Raywid, M. A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools,
schools-within-schools, and separate small schools. Urban Diversity Series
No 108. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Teachers College,
Columbia University. (ED 396 045).
eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/monographs/uds108
The Architectural League of New York & Public Education Association. (1992). New Schools for
New York: Plans and precedents for small schools. The Architectural League of New York,
The Public Education Association. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
For further information on creating smaller schools visit:
www.edfacilities.org/rl/size.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 6:
Respect Contextual Compatibility While Providing Design Diversity
Blend community learning centers into the pattern and character of the local, surrounding
community neighborhoods and facilities. In a complementary fashion, create differently
styled schools ñ variations on the overall design theme ñ to respond to the need for
community identity and as a response to active parental, children, teachers,
administration, and community participation.
As real estate development sprawl has expanded, the principle of creating well-defined
neighborhoods has been ignored in urban planning. While a strong neighborhood may not
directly influence educational performance, the sense of cohesion experienced by
community members may help increase parental involvement in neighborhood schools.
Research has shown that parental involvement in the school is critical to a learner's
success. By creating a contextually compatible school, people may feel that the school
is part of the neighborhood, and in turn, part of them. While maintaining a sense of
continuity through contextual design, creating diversely designed environments that
have their own identity is equally important in enabling community members to
recognize the school as a symbol of their community.
Moore, G.T. & Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities for the Twenty-first Century:
Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Report R94-1, School of Architecture and
Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for Architecture and
Urban Planning Research. Also available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
No. EA 026223.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 7:
Consider Home as a Template for School
Use friendly, "home-like" elements and materials in the design of the school at all
scales when appropriate and possible. Home-like characteristics might include: creating
smaller groupings of students often called ìfamiliesî in the middle school philosophy,
designing appropriately-scaled elements, locating restrooms near instructional areas,
providing friendly and welcoming entry sequences, creating residentially sloping roofs,
and creating enclosed ëback-yardsí. Use familiar and meaningful elements from the
surrounding residential neighborhood as the "template" for the imagery of the new
school/community learning center.
The transition from the home setting to institutional settings such as the school
environment can be stressful, especially for younger children. Experience tells us
that building in physical and social home-like characteristics may reduce anxiety on
the part of both parent and child, help children feel more comfortable and enable to
concentrate on learning.
Crumpacker, S.S. (1995). Using cultural information to create schools that work. In
Meek, A. (Ed.) Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 31-42.
Moore, G.T., Lane, C.G.., Hill, A.B., Cohen, U. & McGinty, T. (1979). Recommendations
for child care centers. Report No. R79-2. Center for Architecture & Urban Planning
Research. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Educational Design Principle No. 8:
Meander Circulation while Ensuring Supervision
Beware of long corridors. Circulation such as hallways and corridors are a costly
percentage of a school building. However, circulation can double as an active learning
space for the school. Design meadering pathways to increase opportunities for positive
social interaction. Use circulation to create gentle transitions from different spaces,
taking advantage of turns and bends to create unique areas of learning. Conversely,
for issues of safety, circulation paths must be designed to ensure supervision by not
only administrators, but students, teachers and parents. Creating central activity
nodes that connect short paths is one strategy for maintaining visual supervision
without creating long institutional-style corridors.
Not all learners and faculty share a common room or floor. Many times the only meeting
these people have is in areas of circulation. It is important to take advantage of these
impromptu meetings by designing the circulation space within the school as a place to
converse and share of information and ideas. Simultaneously, public circulation space
is known to be one of the most difficult places in a school to keep safe from illicit
activity. The goals of encouraging positive social behaviors and reducing violence do
not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, if appropriately addressed through design,
encouraging positive behaviors can have a mediating effect on the reduction of unwanted
social behaviors.
Moore, G.T. & Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities for the Twenty-first Century:
Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Report R94-1, School of Architecture and Urban
Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning
Research. Also available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. EA 026223.
Moore, G.T., Lane, C.G., Hill, A.B., Cohen, U. & McGinty, T. (1979).
Recommendations for child care centers. Report No. R79-2. Center for
Architecture & Urban Planning Research. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Educational Design Principle No. 9:
Design for Safe Schools
Safe school design must be seen as being only one component of a larger system of
crime prevention measures that include administrative procedures, student, staff,
and community training programs, and the implementation of security programs.
Design and use of the environment directly affects human behavior which, in turn,
influences opportunities for crime and fear of crime, and impacts quality of life.
These opportunities for crime can be reduced through appropriate planning and design
decisions.
Three critical safe school design principles include access control, natural surveillance,
and definition of territory. Natural access control denies access to a crime target
and creates a perception of risk in offenders. Access control uses doors, shrubs,
fences, gates and other physical design elements to discourage access to an area
by all but its intended users. Natural surveillance assures that offenders and
intruders will be observed. It increases the likelihood that individuals who
care but are not officially responsible for regulating the use of space will
observe these individuals and either challenge their behavior or report it to
someone who is officially responsible. Surveillance is achieved by placing
windows in locations that allow intended users to see or be seen, while ensuring
that intruders will be observed as well. Opportunities for surveillance are
enhanced, by providing adequate lighting, glass and landscaping that allow for
unobstructed views. Locate administrative areas directly adjacent to the main
entrance to the school. Territorial reinforcement suggests that physical design
can contribute to a sphere of influence so that users develop a sense of
"ownership" that is perceived by offenders. Territory is defined by sidewalks,
landscaping, porches and other elements that establish the boundaries between
public and private areas.
Educational Design Principle No. 10:
Cluster Instructional Areas
Cluster instructional areas around central cores of shared instructional support and
resource spaces. Instructional spaces should act as ìalcoves for learningî off
centrally located shared resource space. The core should include informal meeting
space, seminar and shared conference rooms, a small computer hub and teacher
offices. Each cluster may support traditional disciplinary teaching (history,
math, arts) or interdisciplinary teaching. Each cluster may contain grade-level
groupings or multi-age groupings of learners. To maximize the flexibility of
instructional clusters use any appropriate combination of stand alone movable
partitions, movable modular furnishings, large double doors out of room to
shared spaces.
Clustered instructional areas provide the opportunity for the greatest flexibility for
pedagogical goals and educational program changes from organizational strategies
(grade-level groupings to multi-age groupings of learners) to instructional
strategies (team teaching and interdisciplinary instruction). Open-plan designs
of the 1960ís and 1970s may have been partially successful at broadening the
educational experience of learners, but both teachers and learners found that
too many physical distractions were experienced for these open physical settings
to become the norm. The key to new classroom arrangement then, is to provide
spaces that are open but then have areas of enclosure for more task specific
activities. These spaces will then be diverse in use but not have the sight
and sound distractions as before.
Brubaker, W.C. (1998). Planning and designing schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 11:
Provide Space for Sharing Instructional Resources
The reality of limited resources suggests strongly the sharing of all available
instructional resources. Provide a well-defined area directly adjacent to instructional
alcoves and core spaces that provide technology-rich resources that can be shared by
learners in an instructional cluster. Resources can take a wide variety of forms from
small, specialized libraries, information technology and other instructional media to
special equipment and general workspace.
For educators to be successful, the availability of resources by students and faculty
is important. Students that do not have access to learning spaces, resources, and
teachers will be at a disadvantage. By creating instructional areas that have direct
accessibility to these resources, the learning process will be supported.
Chupela, D. (1994). Ready, set, go!: Childrenís programming for bookmobiles and other small
spaces. Atkinson, WI: Alleyside Press.
Feinberg, S., Kuchner, J. F. & Feldman, S. (1998). Learning environments for young
children: Rethinking library spaces and services. Chicago: American Library Association.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 12:
Design for a Variety of Learning Groups and Spaces
Allow for as wide a variety of group learning sizes as possible. Nest learner
groupings from an entire ìfamilyî of 100 learners, to five groups of 20 learners,
to groups of 12, 4-6 and 1-2 learners. Create a variety of adjoining learning
spaces and arrangements in keeping with the educational program goals of the school.
Create partially open/partially closed space, with adjacent, smaller, enclosed spaces,
the smaller spaces separated yet connected. Ensure moderate visual openness, yet also
ensure adequate acoustical barriers. Articulate each cluster of instructional areas by
gathering several small-group learning areas around a space for large-group
instruction. Each of the small group areas can be further divided into individual
activity areas to allow for quiet, individualized self-directed learning.
Learning takes place in many different kinds and qualities of space. The
self-contained classroom can no longer provide the variety of learning
settings necessary to successfully facilitate Twenty-first century learning.
Crumpacker, S.S. (1995). Using cultural information to create schools that work.
In Meek, A. (Ed.) Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 31-42.
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. ASCD/CEFPI.
McMillan, D. (1997). Classroom spaces and learning places: How to arrange your
room for maximum learning. Charthage, Il: Teaching & Learning Company.
Weinstein, C. S. & Mignano, A.J. Jr. (1997). Elementary classroom management:
Lessons from research and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weinstein, C.S. (1996). Secondary classroom management: Lessons from research and
practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Educational Design Principle No.13:
Keep Class Sizes Small
The size of the primary learning group in which the child spends the most time makes a
significant difference in the quality of education and development. Create
instructional areas that allow for 12-16 learners in early childhood and
elementary grade levels, 16-20 learners in middle school grade levels,
and 20-24 learners in secondary school grade levels.
Class size research points directly to a social and physical link to achievement.
Children in smaller classes (13-17 per room) have been found in one study to outperform
those in regular-sized classes (22-25 per room). In the early grades, children in
smaller classes were found to outperform children from regular class sizes in all
subjects, but especially in reading and mathematics test scores with average
improvements of up to 15%. Smaller classes were especially helpful for children
in inner-city schools. A follow-up study that used the same schools, students
and tests has shown that students previously in small classes demonstrated
statistically significant advantages two years later over students previously
in regular sized classes. Performance gains ranged from 11-34%. Reasons for
these gains may be that, more and higher quality student-teacher interactions
are possible in a smaller class, and that spatial density and crowding are
also reduced. In a study of younger children it was found that increased
density can induce stress in children thereby increasing aggressive behavior
and distraction in younger children.
Achilles, C.M. (1992, September). The effect of school size on student achievement and the
interaction of small classes and school size on student achievement. Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Educational Administration, University of North
Carolina-Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Crumpacker, S.S. (1995). Using cultural information to create schools that work.
In Meek, A. (Ed.) Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 31-42.
Department of Education. (1999, March). Reducing class size: What do we know?
www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass
Department of Education. (1998, April). Class size and students
at risk: What is known? What is next?
www.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize
Loo, C. (1976). The effects of spatial density on behavior types of children.
ERIC, National Institute of Mental Health.
NAEYC. (1999). Reducing Class Size: A Goal for Children's Champions, National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
www.naeyc.org
Educational Design Principle No. 14:
Provide Resource-Rich Well-Defined Activity Pockets
Providing the raw space for learning activities to take place is only the first step in
providing a successful place for learning. Ensure that each large-group, small-group, and
individual learning space is an architecturally well-defined ìactivity pocketî for 2-5
learners with all the surfaces, display, storage, and resources necessary for that
learning activity contained within. Activity pockets can take on a variety of
architectural forms from simple learning centers, to lofts, small alcoves and
lecture pits. Include a variety of furniture layouts for learner activities in
some centripetal for group work, some facing outward for individual work in the same
activity pocket.
Small activity spaces have been found to be important to the development of young learners.
These spaces tend to encourage more learner engagement in a learning task, more teacher
involvement with individual learners, less teacher interruptions, and more exploratory
behavior, social interaction and cooperative behaviors among learners. Smaller clusters
lead to increased use of learning materials, to increased substantive, content questions,
and less non-task oriented movement, less loud conversations, longer attention spans,
and overall greater satisfaction. Secluded study space within an instructional area is
also important for studentsí development and have been found empirically to relate to
performance. Structured reading areas have shown to significantly increase literature
use by students.
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Moore, Gary T. (1986). Effects of the spatial definition of behavior settings on
children's behavior: A quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 6, 205-231.
Moore, Gary T. & Lackney, Jeffery .A. (1994). Educational facilities for the
Twenty-first Century: Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Report R94-1, School
of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for
Architecture and Urban Planning Research. Also available from ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, No. EA 026223.
Educational Design Principle No. 15:
Integrate Early Childhood Education into the Community School
When possible, include a developmentally-oriented child care center and early
childhood development education center that are both integrated programmatically
with the larger school organization. Site the center in the same neighborhood,
close to the school or on the same site if possible.
Reasons for including early childhood programs within the school go well beyond the
more reactive reasons such as teenage pregnancy and unavailability of affordable
daycare for working mothers and even teachers. Research indicates that windows of
opportunity for learning start at a very early age, and providing some structured
learning experiences for children can be beneficial in the later years. Cooperation
between the school and the early childhood education/childcare facility can ease the
transition for the student. Many schools find that providing childcare encourages
parents to keep their child at that school site further easing the transition from
home to school. In addition, childcare can also ease the return to school for
teenage parents to complete their secondary education.
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs. New York: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Coburn, J. (1999, January). Childcare in high school. School Planning and Management.
www.spmmag.com/articles/1999_01/childcare.html
Jones, E. & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. New York: National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
U.S. G.S.A. (1998, June). Child Care Center Design Guide. U.S General Services Administration,
Public Buildings Service, Child Care Center of Expertise.
www.gsa.gov
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 16:
Provide a Home Base for Every Learner
A locker along a corridor does not make a home base. Within the physical boundaries of
each instructional area, create a home base for the learner for whom that learning group
becomes their personal space. Include cubbies and lockers for personal belongings
arranged in small groups to provide space for informal social interaction. Allow
learners to personalize their space as much as possible. For younger children
(infant through 3 or 4-years old) provide space for naps. When possible, locate
washrooms and lunchtime eating areas near the home bases at the primary grades.
Research indicates that personalization of space is an important factor in the formation
of an individualís identity and sense of self-worth. Learners in schools are a lot
like workers in the workplace in that it is important for most people to have some
space that is their own. A desk or locker for possessions and personal belongings
are basic elements of any worksetting. By providing similar forms of personal space
within the school for each learner, those learners will gain a more positive sense of
self and take pride and ownership in their school.
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs. New York: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Jones, E. & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. New York: National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Moore, Gary T., Lane, Carol G., Hill, Ann B., Cohen, U. & McGinty, T. (1979).
Recommendations for child care centers. Report No. R79-2. Center for Architecture &
Urban Planning Research. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Educational Design Principle No. 17:
Regard Teachers as Professionals
Teachers are professionals and should be regarded as such. In addition, teachers need home
bases as well as students. Provide private or semi-private office space for teachers,
including space for personal belongings, phone/fax, personal computer, information
technologies, desk and personal library. Cluster teacher offices together to form a
grouping of no more than four teachers. The location of teacher offices should be
adjacent but not central to instructional areas ñ teachers are not the center of
education, learners are. In place of the old ìteachersí lounge,î provide conferencing
rooms where larger groups of teachers can meet formally to exchange information and
teaching experiences with themselves and with school visitors. Include a balance formal
and informal/break-out meeting space, with support space such as kitchenettes, storage
and private restrooms.
Providing shared facilities for school faculty will create opportunities for teachers to
reflect, form and communicate ideas central to their development as professionals.
In the factory-model school, teachers are more like laborers than professionals,
and students are the products of their labors. The teacherís workspace in the
factory-model school consists of a desk in the front of the self-contained classroom,
which is neither private from students, nor connected to other faculty. By providing
shared offices for the faculty adjacent to learning areas, teachers would still be
accessible to learners, but would have privacy from the formal instructional area
from which to adequately plan learning activities.
Johnson, Susan M. (1990). Teachers, power, and school change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Jones, E. & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. New York: National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Educational Design Principle No. 18:
Provide Studios to Support Project-based Learning
New instructional methods based on real-world authentic learning and authentic
assessment methods will require a new form of instructional space suggested by
studio-based learning settings common in art education. Provide locations for
the generation and storage of semester long projects as well as student
portfolios. Include space for individual, small group, and larger group
productions, including but not limited to audio/visual/digital studios,
dance and performance studios, workshops for various visual arts, photocopy
machines, and large open project tables. Adjacent the portfolio process
studio, provide flexible experimental lab stations for groups or individuals
to explore and demonstrate discoveries in the physical and biological sciences.
Include moveable laboratory furnishings, storage space for equipment, and
visibility and ease of movement through the space.
Project-based learning and studio-based instruction emphasize learning as a team and
foster cooperation and sharing of ideas that will enable students to process material
better. Rather than struggle as individuals, learners can use the strengths of a
group to decrease the time it takes to learn al lesson and increase the amount of
information absorbed. One of the most natural ways of learning is that of
learning-by-doing. Research indicates that participating in a learning exercise,
activity or experiment in addition to attending a lecture engages a broader
array of ìmultiple intelligencesî than relying on lecture alone.
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs. New York: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Jones, E.& Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. New York: National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Lackney, Jeffery A. (1999, August). A history of the studio-based Learning model.
Educational Design Institute. http://www.edi.msstate.edu/studio.html
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Educational Design Principle No. 19:
Encourage Administrative Leadership by Decentralizing Administrative Space
Decentralize administrative functions throughout the community learning center,
yet ensure that each portion is visuable to public areas of the school and not
on the periphery of the school or hidden from view. If the community learning
center is subdivided into more than one school-within-a-school, disperse
administration into each wing, pod or cluster such that it is in the mainstream
of each segment of the center. Organizationally, if appropriate, consider
alternative approaches to developing leadership in the school such as
implementing site-based management teams.
Research indicates that schools that have an effective leader in the role of the
principal, are often the most successful socially and academically. Effective
leaders do not hide in back offices. However, in many schools, administrative
functions and decisions take place in locations remote from teachers, students,
and classrooms. School leaders find ways to involve the staff and students in
decisions that will effect their lives at the school.
Moore, G.T. & Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities for the Twenty-first Century:
Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Report R94-1, School of Architecture and Urban
Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning
Research. Also available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. EA 026223.
Educational Design Principle No. 20:
Establish a Community Forum
Provide a public assembly space to act as a community forum connecting the school and
the community that is accessible, open, free-flowing, and flexible. A community forum
is more than a big, open, undifferentiated space. The forum should have a 'town square'
quality with small areas off the space for more specific activities. Provide for medium
to large numbers of people for dance, music, drama, community meetings, exhibitions,
and displays of student and community work. Auditoriums, as well as physical
education facilities, such as gymnasiums and natatoriums, should be directly
adjacent to this public space. The forum also acts as a break-out space for these
large-assembly community activities. To meet students' behavior patterns in free
time, allow some space off the public space for informal multi-purpose recreation
and social gathering area with, when possible, direct access to informal outdoor
gathering spaces. The social gathering space should have a livingroom feel.
Include semi-private areas for individuals or groups to meet. Integrate the
common gathering area with the formal entry sequence of the school.
Common gathering areas respond to the recognized need to provide an identity for
the learning community. Schools traditionally have not provided space that was
completely open in use, with the exception of the gymnasium, thus reducing
opportunities for developing this cultural identity within the school. In
addition, with the added needs of the community, areas that provide for a
variety of uses can assist in connecting the school to the surrounding community.
Graves, B.E. (1993). School ways: The planning and design of Americaís schools.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brubaker, W.C. (1998). Planning and designing schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 21:
Allow for Community Conferencing Space
Adjacent to the commons area, provide a medium-sized multi-purpose interview/conference
rooms to serve up to 12 community members for private group meetings or counseling.
Place a large round table, movable seating within the largest space, along with storage,
kitchen area, and display space.
Communication is essential for the success of any organization. Like the
workplace, the school needs meeting and conference rooms distinct from the
more specialized instructional space for staff, students, parents, and
community members to meet. These spaces can be used for community meetings
and special events.
Educational Design Principle No. 22:
Create Privacy Niches
Develop several privacy niches or intimate counseling spaces for one-on-one or small
group meetings for 2-4 persons that are relaxing, non-threatening, comfortable, and
private. Include comfortable livingroom-type furniture. Connect these privacy niches
to multi-purpose conferencing spaces, instructional areas and administrative areas.
The relationship between a student and teacher is extremely important to the
success of the educational process. To help foster this relationship, a
school needs places of privacy for small, occasional meetings between its users.
Often visitors to the school have no identifiable place to inhabit when visiting.
School partners who visit the school often have more sophisticated needs and often
require space to set-up shop or facilitate special events within the school in
order to be effective. Create publicly facing niches for visitors, parents, and
adjuncts to conduct special activities or performances in the school. Place them
in places accessible and visible from instructional area clusters. Provide an
area for display or information as a backdrop for activities taking place in the
niche. The niches are best located so as to attract attention when in use but be
unobtrusive when empty.
Meek, A. (Ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Educational Design Principle No. 23:
Weave Together Virtual and Physical Learning Spaces
Information technology is rapidly becoming ubiquitous in our society and has become
an essential tool for business and industry. Information technology is precipitating
a variety of changes in organizational and physical form of our schools. In the goal
of integrating information technology into present school curricula, a variety of
changes are being experienced. With respect to curriculum content and structure,
technology is driving the curriculum in many schools to become more integrated
between disciplines. With respect to instructional processes, technology is driving
the movement toward self-directed learning and individualized instruction.
Although as learning becomes increasingly ìvirtualî and web-based it still must
take physically take place somewhere. At present, information technology is often
unevenly distributed in isolated computer labs in schools with a few computers
scattered around the school building in instructional areas and media centers.
As information technology becomes more available expect that technology to become
more decentralized within the school/community facility. Create an integrated,
flexible and complementary virtual learning space and distance learning programs
that support and supplement the physical school and community learning center.
Provide digital, audio, video, and computer links to and within all parts of the
community learning center and to tertiary learning centers and sources such as
business and community organizations, community colleges, and institutions of
higher learning.
Butterfield, E. (1999, May). Planning today for tomorrow's technology. Designshare.
www.designshare.com/Research/Meeks/MeeksTech1.htm
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1995). Redefining the place to learn. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
Sanborn, F. (1997) How to choose learning stations & seating for your
technology-based classroom. NCSA/NCREL & ITEG, LLC.
archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
Stuebing, S., Wolfshorndl, A., Cousineau, L.K., DiPetrillo, S.E. (1995).
Redefining the place to learn. Programme on Educational Building, Paris,
France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
For further information on weaving together virtual and physical learning spaces
visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/technologyII.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 24:
Provide Opportunities for Job Training
A vital part of the overall community learning is that of job preparation and
training. When possible, provide spaces satellites of opportunity for job training
for the surrounding community and for students Ideally, these job preparation/training
spaces should be provided in partnership with local business and industry.
Business and industry sites can be used as extensions of the school learning
environment for students and community members. When these sites are not
available, when possible provide several small interview and assessment
spaces, a setting for small group training activities and projects, and a
large general space for support material. When resources are limited,
job-training activities could take place in Community Conferencing Space.
In many smaller rural communities, the school is the largest public institution
in the area, and as such these schools begin to take on social service
functions often provided by local government. In larger urban districts,
Tech-Prep and traditional vocational educational programs are being
integrated with School-to-Work and school-to-career programs offering
opportunities to explore career choices while students are still in school.
In addition, many school districts are forming programmatic linkages between
secondary and community college to ease the transition from school to career.
OECD (1996). Making better use of school buildings. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1995). Schools for cities. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 25:
Provide Parent Information Centers
Provide a parent information center as an interface between the
school and the community. The parent information center can serve
to help interested parents learn more about the school, to exchange and
share their diverse knowledge and information on any number of topics,
to act as a public relations office, and, most importantly, to act as a
home base for parents within the school. Provide a separate entry for the
public, an direct link to the school, an informal seating area with
information about the school displayed so that visiting parents and the
community can get an idea of school activities, and one or more private
meeting rooms.
Research has shown clearly that parental involvement in the school is associated
with student success. Parents who are engaged in their school take an active
interest in their childís progress. Offering a home base for parents within
the walls of the school may create a sense of ownership in the school and
encourage parents to stay involved.
Berner, M.M. (1993, April). Building conditions, parental involvement, and student
achievement in the District of Columbia Public School System. Urban Education, 28(1), 6-29.
OECD (1996). Making better use of school buildings. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1995). Schools for cities. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 26:
Provide Health Care Service Centers
Consider forming partnerships with local health agencies in providing on-site
health-care center for students, parents, and members of the surrounding
community. Provide space for a waiting area, separate from the school, and
several private individual exam rooms, and a private office for the care provider.
Many schools have realized that they must take on some social service functions
to better serve the immediate needs of their learners. Expanding the old nurse's
office into a more comprehensive partnership with local health care providers on
the school grounds is one strategy in which schools can respond to the health needs
of their learners without taking on the added administrative responsibility of
operating the center.
OECD (1996). Making better use of school buildings. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (1995). Schools for cities. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
For further information on providing health care service centers in schools visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/health_centers.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 27:
Design Places with Respect for Scale and Developmental Need
The size and scale the building, its exterior elements and its interior spaces,
make it possible for children to use spaces independently in a manner consistent
with their evolving developmental capacities. For child-centered spaces, elements
and spaces can be smaller and heights lower to accommodate children. Minimize the
institutional character of buildings by creating more intimate spaces. Use natural
materials and colors, a variety of forms and textures, vernacular elements, and
extensive landscaping to create interesting and engaging spaces. Comfort for
both children and teachers will require some compromises between child,
youth, and adult-scales.
No one would doubt that child-scaled and familiar user-friendly spaces are more
pleasant and comforting for children. In addition, there is some evidence that 'soft'
classrooms are related to higher levels of voluntary participation and that overall
aesthetic quality in educational facilities is related to students' task persistence.
Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places: Childrensí environments that work.
Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.
Harms, T. & Clifford, R.M. (1980). Early childhood environment rating scale.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Moore, G.T., Lane, C.G., Hill, Ann B., Cohen, U. & McGinty, T. (1979).
Recommendations for child care centers. Report No. R79-2. Center for
Architecture & Urban Planning Research. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Frost, J.L., Shin, D., & Jacobs, P. (1998). Physical environments
and children's play. In Saracho, O.N. & Spodek, B. (Eds.) Multiple
perspectives on play in early childhood education. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Tanner, C. K. (1997). Chart of Architectural/Natural Support Systems for
School Design and Construction. University of Georgia.
www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/archives.html
Educational Design Principle No. 28:
Maximize Natural and Full-Spectrum Lighting
Maximize task-appropriate lighting, eliminate standard cold-white fluorescent
lighting, and emphasize natural and full-spectrum lighting throughout the
school/community center. When siting the building and deciding on the
internal placement of nested learning groups, face indoor activity spaces
toward the most favorable microclimatic directions, e.g., south-facing
activity spaces leading to outdoor learning areas that are also in the most
favorable microclimatic locations.
Natural light and artificial full-spectrum lighting has been found to minimize
mental fatigue as well as reduce hyperactivity in children. Studies have shown
that students tend to react more positively to classrooms that have windows.
Further, it has been found that fluorescent lighting may be related to greater
amounts of stress and hyperactivity in learners. By providing installing
full-spectrum lighting and maximizing controlled natural daylighting, schools
may not only improve student performance but also achieve more responsible
economic and energy conscious buildings.
Dunn, R., Krimsky, J.S., Murray, J.B. & Quinn, P.J. (1985, May). Light up their
lives: A review of research on the effects of lighting on childrenís achievement
and behavior. The Reading Teacher. 863-869.
Grocoff, P.N. (1995, December). Electric lighting and daylighting in
schools. Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) Issue Track.
www.cefpi.com
Heschong Mahone Group. (1999, August). Daylighting in schools: An investigation
into the relationship between daylighting and human performance. Daylighting
Initiative, The Pacific Gas and Electric Company on the behalf of the
California Board for Energy Efficiency Third Party Program.
www.pge.com
Kleiber, D., et al. (1973). Environmental illumination and human behavior:
The effects of spectrum light sources on human performance in a university
setting. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Mayron, L.W., Ott, J., Nations, R., Mayron, E.(1974). Light,
radiation and academic behavior. Academic Therapy, 40, 33-47.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ott, John N. (1976, August/September). Influence of fluorescent lights
on hyperactivity and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9:7, 22-27.
For further information on maximizing natural and full-spectrum lighting visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/lighting.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 29:
Design Healthy Buildings
Achieving good indoor air quality is as essential as providing comfortable,
healthy thermal conditions and functional, aesthetically sound lighting and
acoustical environments. Design environmental control systems to maintain
temperatures well within the thermal comfort zone and maximize individual
control as much as possible at the site of learning. Strategies for improving
indoor air quality include increasing levels of fresh-air intake and increased
ventilation rates in buildings. These preventive design measures cost very
little and save energy, as well as provide a more healthy environment for learners.
Thermal comfort has been shown to influence task performance, attention spans and
levels of discomfort. Thermal conditions are below optimal levels affect dexterity,
while higher than optimal temperatures decrease general alertness and increase
physiological stress. Two types of energy conservation measures (often blamed
for so-called sick-building syndrome) have been shown to directly increase
indoor air pollutant concentrations: inappropriately reducing ventilation and
using sealants and caulks that emit pollutants. These factors may be affecting
not only performance but also the overall physical health of children. Children
in 'sick buildings' have been found to exhibit clear signs of sensory
irritation, skin rashes, and mental fatigue, all factors with the potential
of decreasing the ability of students to perform.
Berglund & Lindvall. (1986). Sensory reactions to sick buildings. Environment
International, 12, 147-159.
Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols, D., & Krantz. D.S.(1986). Behavior,
health, and environmental stress. New York: Plenum.
McGuffey, C.W. (1982). Facilities. In Walberg, H.J. (Ed.) Improving
educational standards and productivity: The research basis for policy.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing. 237-288.
Miller, Norma L. (1995). The healthy school handbook: Conquering the
sick building syndrome and other environmental hazards in and around your school.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association Professional Library Publication.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
For further information on designing healthy buildings visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/iaq.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 30:
Design for Appropriate Acoustics
Whenever possible, provide sound absorbing materials on floors, walls and ceilings,
locate schools away from noisy and congested urban streets, separate active noisy
areas in the school from quiet study areas. Within instructional areas provide
acoustical barriers that diminish the effects of different sounds, noises and
speech patterns that distract learners from focusing. Provide acoustically controlled,
well-defined areas within a single instructional area that respond to the special
learning activities requiring concentration such as self-directed study and
individual reading areas.
It is well accepted in the scientific community, that prolonged exposure to
high-intensity noise in community or work settings is often harmful to the health
and behavior of large segments of the exposed populations. Noise in the learning
environment can originate from within as well as outside the school building and
can be both short and long-term. Both forms of noise can have major affects on
student behavior and in some cases, achievement. Studies have concluded there
are significant increases in blood pressure associated with schools being near
noisy urban streets. Exposure to traffic noise at elementary schools also has
been associated with deficits in mental concentration, making more errors on
difficult tasks, and greater likelihood of giving up on tasks before the time
allocated has expired. Noise may for example decrease teaching time for forcing
teachers to continuously pause or by making it difficult for the student and
teacher to hear one another.
Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols, D., & Krantz. D.S.(1986). Behavior, health,
and environmental stress. New York: Plenum.
Evans, G.W., Kliewer, W. & Martin, J. (1991). The role of the physical
environment in the health and well-being of children. In H.E. Schroeder (Ed.),
New Directions in Health Psychology Assessment (pp. 127-157). New York: Hemisphere.
Evans, G.W. & Lepore, S.J., (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children:
A critical review. Children's Environments, 10(1), pp.31-51.
Evans, G.W. & Maxwell, L., (1997). Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits:
The mediating effects of language acquisition. Environment and Behavior, 29(5), pp.638-656.
Maxwell, L. & Evans, G. W. (1998). Design of Child Care Centers and Effects of Noise on
Young Children.
www.designshare.com/Research/LMaxwell/NoiseChildren.htm
Nelson, P.B. (1997, June 7). Impact of hearing loss on children in typical school
environments. Acoustical Society of America 133rd Meeting Lay Language Papers,
133rd ASA Meeting, State College, PA.
www.acoustics.org/133rd/2paaa2.html
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme on
Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Picard, M. & Bradley, J.B. (1997, June 7). Revisiting speech interference
by noise in classrooms and considering some possible solutions. Acoustical Society
of America 133rd Meeting Lay Language Papers, 133rd ASA Meeting, State College, PA.
www.acoustics.org/133rd/2paaa3.html
For further information on the design of appropriate acoustics visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/acoustics.cfm
Site Design and Outdoor Learning Spaces
Educational Design Principle No. 31:
Allow for Transitional Spaces Between Indoor and Outdoor Spaces
Learning space within the building should connect to outdoor learning spaces while
creating additional transition spaces for school and community activities. Create
weather-protected transition spaces between inside and outside including porches
and decks a minimum of six feet in depth that can serve as learning activity spaces
in their own right. Maximize views in and out.
Transitional spaces such as overhangs and porches will encourage various levels
of learning activities in the outdoors that might not otherwise occur since they
offer more opportunities to engage the natural environment visually, aurally and
kinesthetically.
Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places: Childrensí environments that work.
Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.
Moore, G.T. & Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities for the Twenty-first Century:
Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Report R94-1, School of Architecture and
Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for Architecture and
Urban Planning Research. Also available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. EA 026223.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France: Programme
on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Educational Design Principle No. 32:
Establish a Variety of Outdoor Learning Environments
Create spaces outside and adjacent to the building on site or on neighboring sites
that mirror learning space within the building. Locate outdoor play and activity
areas on the south of the building to catch as much sun and light as possible,
especially in the winter, spring, and fall months. To maximize the chance of
year-round use of parts of the outdoors, create favorable microclimates by
protecting outdoor activity areas from prevailing winter winds and from the
extreme summer sun while allowing winter sun to penetrate. As much as possible,
learning environments should allow for a variety of learning activities and
experiences not available indoors such as nature trails, gardens, exploratoriums,
fields, forested areas, ponds and other natural outdoor learning settings.
In school settings where land is not available, or funds do not allow, the
school might take advantage of the local communityís existing neighborhood
resources such as parks, public space, walking tours, and community and
business establishments.
Outdoor activity areas for younger learners can be modeled after a series of
interconnected developmentally appropriate back yards, with resource-rich activity
pockets zoned appropriately and linked by clear circulation which overlooks.
Provide for a diversity of activities (i.e., not only gross-motor play, but also
reading/listening, gardening, and fantasy play).
Outdoor space can be used for more than simply ìburning off energyî before the real
studying begins inside. Outdoor settings are often a missed opportunity for learning and
can be a valuable resource and laboratory for exploratory learning not possible in
built environments.
Brett, A., Moore, R.C. & Provenzo, E.F., Jr. (1993). The complete playground book.
New York: Syracuse University Press.
Dempsey, J.D. & Frost, J.L. (1993). Play environments in early childhood
education. Pp. 306-321. In Spodek, B. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on the Education
of Young Children. New York: MacMillan.
Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places: Childrensí environments
that work. Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.
Kritchevsky, S.,Prescott, E. & Walling, L. (1977). Planning environments
for young children: Physical space. Washington, D.C.: National Association
for the Education of Young Children.
Moore, R.C., Goltsman, S.M. & Iacofano, D.S. (1992). Play for all Guidelines:
Planning, design and management of outdoor play settings for all children.
Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Moore, G.T., Lane, C.G., Hill, Ann B., Cohen, U. & McGinty, T. (1979).
Recommendations for child care centers. Report No. R79-2. Center for
Architecture & Urban Planning Research. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
OECD (1996). Schools for today and tomorrow. PEB Papers. Paris, France:
Programme on Educational Building. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Stine, S. (1997). Landscapes for learning: Creating outdoor
environments for children and youth. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
For further information on establishing a variety of outdoor learning environments visit
www.edfacilities.org/rl/playgrounds.cfm
Educational Design Principle No. 33:
Separate Children and Pedestrians from Vehicles and Service
For purposes of safety, buffer all children and pedestrian areas away from all
vehicular and service areas. The building may be the buffer between these zones,
with children's activity areas and pedestrian access from the south, vehicular
access from the east or west, and service and parking on the north, or the buffer
may be created by a combination of landscaping and fencing.
Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places: Childrensí environments that work.
Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.
Moore, G.T., Lane, C.G., Hill, Ann B., Cohen, U. & McGinty, T. (1979). Recommendations
for child care centers. Report No. R79-2. Center for Architecture & Urban Planning
Research. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.