EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES IN GEORGIAíS SCHOOLS
by
JENNIFER LANDRUM HADDEN
(Under the Direction of C. KENNETH
TANNER ñ School Design, Planning, and Research Laboratory - http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl
)
ABSTRACT
School
facility design features influence the learning process and are central
concerns of educational planners.
This study identified the features existing in Georgiaís schools to
determine Georgia trends in school design. Two main study areas were the schoolsí physical environment
and functional environment. The following categories were analyzed: Energy Efficient, Flexible, and
Sustainable Designs; Aesthetics; Safety; Collaboration; Classroom Space and
Furnishings; Technology; Organization of Classroom and Administrative Offices;
Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds; Teacher Facilities;
Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities; Classroom
Instructional Opportunities; Instructional Opportunities and Educational
Programs; Organization of Instruction; and Community or Social Use. Seventy-one
participants completed the electronic survey providing responses indicating
trends occurring in Georgiaís schools. At least 50% of the trends found for
Georgiaís schools through voluntary responses to the survey were also found in
a comparison study in Virginia.
Descriptive data of the open-ended responses were categorized as the
most unique features, the features liked least, and the features liked
most. Recommendations include that
the study results be used as a benchmark for individual districts and schools
in regard to facility planning.
Representing over 50% of features to occur for each category
surveyed, four prominent recommendations were suggested as benchmarks:
Collaboration (Planning, Funding, and Technology); Safety and Security;
Aesthetic Considerations; and Technology.
Further design features recommended for consideration in the future
include the following:
JENNIFER LANDRUM HADDEN
B.S., Valdosta State University, 1994
M.Ed., Augusta State University, 1998
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
ATHENS, GA
2005
Jennifer Landrum Hadden
All Rights Reserved
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES IN GEORGIAíS SCHOOLS
Major
Professor: C. Kenneth
Tanner
Committee: Jo Blase
C.
Thomas Holmes
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso
Dean of Graduate School
May 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS............................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of Study................................................................................................ 6
Research Questions............................................................................................ 7
Setting................................................................................................................. 7
Significance of Study.......................................................................................... 7
Assumptions...................................................................................................... 9
Limitations of Study........................................................................................... 9
Definitions.......................................................................................................... 9
Organization of Study........................................................................................ 9
2
REVIEW OF
LITERATURE...................................................................................... 11
Energy Efficient, Flexible and Sustained Designs............................................. 13
Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 18
Safety
and Security........................................................................................... 20
Collaboration.................................................................................................... 21
Discussion........................................................................................................ 24
Classroom Space and Furnishings.................................................................... 25
Technology...................................................................................................... 26
Organization
of Classroom and Administrative Offices................................... 27
Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds.............................................. 28
Teacher Facilities.............................................................................................. 30
Functional Use: Instructional Strategies and Instructional Opportunities....... 31
Functional Use: Community and Social Use.................................................... 34
Discussion........................................................................................................ 36
3
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 37
Research Questions.......................................................................................... 37
Population and Sample..................................................................................... 37
Methods........................................................................................................... 38
Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................... 38
4
FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 40
Introduction...................................................................................................... 40
Demographics................................................................................................... 42
Energy Efficient, Flexible and
Sustained Designs............................................. 42
Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 44
Safety and Security........................................................................................... 45
Collaboration.................................................................................................... 48
Classroom Space and Furnishings.................................................................... 52
Technology....................................................................................................... 54
Organization of Classrooms and Offices......................................................... 57
Student Communal Spaces............................................................................... 58
School Grounds............................................................................................... 60
Teacher Facilities.............................................................................................. 61
Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities................................ 62
Classroom Instructional Opportunities............................................................ 64
Instructional Opportunities and Educational Programs................................... 68
Organization of Instruction.............................................................................. 69
Social and Community Use.............................................................................. 71
Open-Ended Questions.................................................................................... 73
5
SUMMARY,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS........................... 76
Summary
of Findings........................................................................................ 76
Discussion........................................................................................................ 85
Recommendations............................................................................................. 85
Implications for Further Research.................................................................... 87
REFERENCES Truncated ............................................................................................................ 88
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 93
A
SURVEY FOR GEORGIA...................................................................................... 93
B
VIRGINIA FINDINGS.......................................................................................... 105
C
OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES IN ORIGINAL TEXT..................... 106
D
OPEN-ENDED DATA SUMMARY................................................................... 121
E
PERMISSION GRANTED FOR VIRGINIA SURVEY....................................... 128
F VIRGINIA SURVEY.............................................................................................. 129
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Demographics.................................................................................................................. 42
Table 2: Energy Efficient, Flexible and
Sustained Designs............................................................ 43
Table 3: Aesthetics........................................................................................................................ 45
Table 4: Safety and Security.......................................................................................................... 47
Table 5: Funding and Collaboration............................................................................................... 49
Table 6: Classroom Space and Furnishings................................................................................... 51
Table 7: Technology-Collaboration............................................................................................... 51
Table 8: Classroom, Space and
Furnishings.................................................................................. 53
Table 9: Technology...................................................................................................................... 56
Table 10: Organization of Classrooms and
Offices....................................................................... 58
Table 11: Student Communal Space.............................................................................................. 59
Table 12: School Grounds............................................................................................................. 60
Table 13: Teacher Facilities........................................................................................................... 61
Table 14: Instructional/Social Program
Services and Opportunities............................................. 63
Table 15: Technology and Communal Use ................................................................................... 66
Table 16: Instructional Classroom
Programs Opportunities......................................................... 66
Table 17: Instructional Opportunities
and Educational Programs................................................ 69
Table 18: Organization of Instruction........................................................................................... 70
Table 19: Social and Community Use........................................................................................... 72
Table 20: Trends of Georgiaís Schools.......................................................................................... 77
Table 21: Comparison of Similar Trends
Surveyed for Georgia and Virginia................................ 80
Table 22: Non-comparable Trends................................................................................................ 81
Table 23: Comparable Trends Not
Occurring for Both Georgia and Virginia............................... 83
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Studies
have proven significant correlations to school facilities and student outcomes,
including student achievement and student behavior, as facilities assist with
shaping the educational environment and in many instances its process or
function: Lighting (Mahone 2002; Kuller and Lindsten 1992); Indoor Air Quality
(Wargo and Wargo 2002; Daisey and Angell 1998); Acoustics (Maxwell and Evans
1999; Mills 1975); Color (Sinofsky and Knirck 1981); Ergonomics (Marschall at
al. 1995); and State of Repair (Berner 1993; Bowers and Burkett 1989). The most
effective design features used and the extent school facilities influence
student outcomes are educational interests continually sought by educators and
facility builders. Interests
in design features occur at various levels and sects. Those interested in physical characteristics aim to understand
the effectiveness of maintenance and operations, while those directly involved
with curricula are likely to be concerned with the function of the building and
its use for the learning processes.
The popularity of both continues to increase, while seeking to
understand the connection of facilities to student learning. As a result of inevitable influences on
educational change, trends begin to emerge in educational design and further
shape the learning environment and experiences.
The
influences of school design contributing to such trends in school features are
significant in number and are attributed to universal and local interests,
change, and advancements.
Furthermore, technology has initiated change in which communication has
drastically changed the entire world, creating trends for schools to react to
societyís interests (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells, 2004; McCain,
1996; Sanoff, 1994). When communication and technology have
made it possible to have a business meeting on one continent and dinner that
same night on another, change is inevitable in education. Not only has it impacted the physical
design of schools through the installation of features such as computers and
technical equipment, but the access and resources offered have a direct
influence on the functional uses, resulting in curriculum and knowledge
prioritization (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells, 2004; McCain, 1996; Sanoff, 1994). Technological
advancements alter learning methods as learning styles can be more easily
adapted than before in classrooms. Given the variability and individuality
technology offers, demand is created for flexibility. Making the school design flexible and adaptable is a
compelling issue for facility builders, given the on-going influences.
Although
not significantly affecting functional features, another universal influence on
facility building directly impacting the physical design features is
energy:
Energy should be considered the
architect.... Aside from the pressing social responsibilities to conserve
fuels, educational planners need to consider the financial stress aggravated by
energy scarcities. In 1970, school districts across the country spent $26.70
per pupil for energy. Projections
indicate tripling of energy costs by 1885 and quadrupling by 1992. (Wilson,
1981, p. 93)
Recent emphasis has been placed on
ìgreen buildingî to make efforts to conserve resources.
While
technology and energy globally influence school design, other factors influence
the design of schools at a micro-society, community level and are specific to
educational facilities. ìAmong the
most important issues and trends relevant to school design are the following:
enrollment trends, program requirements, conditions of existing facilities,
schools as community centers and changes in school utilizationî (Kliment, 2001,
p. 92). Society and government
make efforts to reform education often simultaneously with leader and community
beliefs contributing their own educational objectives and goals. Schools and
educational progress are central concerns, especially in an era of federal
policies such as No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2001),
increased accountability, and expectancy for standardized scores to increase
for all students. The definition of student achievement is often referred to as
student outcome, since definitions of student achievement and student success
have begun to differ. ìAt the same time that thereís this push toward
standardized curricula and standardized testing...thereís a movement in what
seems to be the opposite direction: toward highly exploratory, individualized
(and individually directed) learningî (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells,
2004, p. xvii).
Regarding
the physical environment, how renovations and growth populations are viewed may
or may not be referred to as an influence on school design features, but they
are definitely considerations, since they influence the demand to build or
re-design. Knowing that school
facilities have a profound effect on the learning process, health and curricula
are serious concerns regarding school facilities. Students cannot learn in areas with poor ventilation and
health hazards. Building-related illnesses, resulting from ineffective indoor
environmental quality management is conducive to student absences and results
in students not performing well.
Such results could be attributed to respiratory problems or allergies
caused from poor building conditions (EPA, 2000, para 6). Aside from health, outdated
equipment and dilapidation hinders learning for the desired student outcome.
The average age of school buildings is approximately 42 years old (National
Center for Educational Statistics, 1999). Given these facts and trends it is
expected that schools already in existence will have to be maintained by
upgrading and replacing equipment as well as renovated to meet current
educational practices.
In
the first part of the 19th century the industrial expansion ìmade it
necessary to take new, comprehensive measures and build an increasing number of
schoolsî (Roth, 1950, p. 24).
Today, ìA 60 million enrollment is expected by 2030î (U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Public Affairs, 2000), efforts are going to have to be
made to accommodate growing student populations with additional schools. Enrollments for public and private
schools peaked in 2001, and although not projected to grow at the same rate,
enrollment will continue to grow in both public and private schools. Factors
influencing enrollment include migration, birth rate levels in the 1990's, and
changing state and local policies leading to higher enrollments through
additional programs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).
As
with the industrial expansion, additional social influences affect school
design from social, family constructs.
Whether by necessity or choice, familiesí status (both parents working,
single parent homes), youth pregnancies, work ethics, educational experiences,
and socio-economic status are constructs contributing to changes in school
design. School features are designed to compliment or compensate for changes in
families and society. In many instances, school facilities are designed and
prepared to accommodate traditional needs of the home and offer opportunities
for students and their families not otherwise accessible. These needs also
bring about additional costs and are increasing in number and variability.
Whether the increases are attributed to actual changes in society or recent
awareness thus creating an interest to react, they have become a part of many
schoolsí functions.
As
a result of the many influences on school design ranging from global to local
interests, efforts to create sustainable, efficient, and flexible schools are
becoming emerging aspects of school facilities. European studies on
infrastructure design, resulting from in depth qualitative studies of
quantitative findings suggest ìstudent academic achievement improves with
improved building conditions. Individual factors, such as lighting levels, air
quality, temperature, and acoustics, have an effect on student behavior and
outcomesî (Fisher, 2002, p.5).
Given that studies have linked school facilities, student achievement,
and student outcomes, knowing and understanding the recent designs existing and
available is important for improving design features to maximize educational
opportunities. What kinds of
school designs are being created to support these reforms? Are buildings
representative of minimal standards and specifications as outlined by
legislation, or do they go beyond expected minimums? Are they prototypes or
expanded structures reflecting the desires of individual systems and
communities from which they are initiated? Are schools being designed as
traditional structures for teacher lead-instruction with limited mobility or
flexibility? Are philosophies taking a more practical or Deweyan approach than
ever before to accommodate aesthetics and a learner -centered approach; or are
they designed progressively, reflective of the work ethic and economic
influence on education? These questions are already a part of the philosophies
shaping school planning as additional trends are emerging in school design as
part of the 21st Century.
Most importantly, do the answers to these questions regarding school
design exemplify the research for helping students learn and reflect the
desires of all those who contribute to the educational environment and use it?
Awareness
of design options are a very important part of improving and evaluating
educational settings; therefore, as efforts are made to build or renovate
schools and educational facilities, urgency is created regarding understanding
designs that represent the most effective learning environment (Schneider,
2002). Educators and students
ideally benefit from an educational design that is functional and serves the
goals and desires for educational outcomes. Designs not planned carefully in
schools cannot only be costly and wasteful, but in certain instances bring
about continual frustration for the classroom environment when teacher,
administrative, and community pedagogical preferences and practical
functionalities are not considered. Buildings and classrooms where teachers
cannot use appropriate equipment and where students are not comfortable and
safe are not conducive to increasing student achievement. When educational facilities are planned
to support learning, instruction can be facilitated more effectively through
the physical and functional environment. According to Lackney, ìThe schools we
build now will be with us for the next 50 yearsî (Rivero, 2004, p. 24);
however, ìthe challenge is to create schools that will serve students well into
the coming decades, yet remain within budgetî (Tucker & Zahn, 1997, p.
1). Research of existing features
in schools, revealing whether design features are no longer applicable to the
environment and to determine emergent features resulting from educational
influences, contributes valuable knowledge to facility design planning.
Purpose of Study
Since educational studies have proven facilities have an effect on
educational environments and student achievement, educational design should be
further studied to continue to meet societal and educational goals as they
currently exist and emerge.
Bradley and Protheroe cite several studies of facilities affecting
studentsí attitudes, achievement, health, and behavior: Lighting (Mahone 2002;
Kuller and Lindsten 1992); Indoor Air Quality (Wargo and Wargo 2002; Daisey and
Angell 1998); Acoustics (Maxwell and Evans 1999; Mills 1975); Color (Sinofsky
and Knirck 1981); Ergonomics (Marschall at al. 1995); and State of Repair
(Berner 1993; Bowers and Burkett 1989). Further studies on types and variations
of design trends are valuable for continuing to make educational progress. Such
research assists for determining how educational spaces are designed most
effectively for providing optimum learning experiences, while maintaining
healthy, safe learning environments.
The
purpose of this study was to describe the design features found in Georgiaís
schools and to determine the features existing, since they become outdated with
educational change and new educational influences. Another focus of this study was to establish a benchmark for
further studies regarding facilities and their connection to student
achievement, student outcomes, and the educational environment. Specifically,
this study reviewed schools built in Georgia to determine existing design
features. The physical and functional environment of school design was studied
to determine the features used most frequently in school designs. Once these characteristics were found,
they were compared to findings from a similar study completed in Virginia (New
Design Features,
1998-99). The Virginia study was
used as a bench mark for comparison of findings.
Research Questions
1. What are the existing educational facility design features in
Georgiaís schools?
2.
How do these features and trends compare with those found in the Virginia
study?
Setting
The setting consisted of over 2,000 schools in Georgia, both public and
private. Both urban and rural districts
were included. Local school
administrators were asked to participate in surveys.
Significance of the Study
Georgiaís capital outlay for school facilities was approximately two
million dollars as represented in the 2004 Governorís recommended budget
(Georgia Department of Education, 2004).
Population growth is presenting facility builders with projections they
must take care of immediately. From fall of 2001 through fall of 2013 Georgia
is expected to be one of the fifteen states with the largest projected
enrollment increase in public elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). As constructions and renovations
continue to increase, facility planning, the earliest phase in facility
building is becoming a more valuable component to the planners and their
stakeholders for proactive efforts in school facilities. It is vital for these
groups to be aware of various designs and features available and to gain as
much understanding as possible of the influence of features used in
schools. In order to inform
school planners and all persons with the intent to improve schools, it is
important to identify the features of existing schools and trends.
Teacher
and student classroom instruction directly impact learning, and school
facilities directly contribute and influence learning in the educational
environment through their physical and functional features. School design can
facilitate or restrict educational philosophies representative of traditional,
progressive, or pragmatic approaches (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells,
2004; McCain, 1996; Sanoff,
1994; Ledford, 1981). The extent to which the environment is
flexible, the extent to which spaces are designed for cooperative learning, how
many student centers are established, and further areas for exploration
directly influencing student achievement can all be reflected in school
design. Designs can also be
reflective of potential relationships and connections to community and
parents. School design is ever
changing with society and its progress.
ìForward-thinking communities are taking a hard look at learning
environments and applying the results to school design. Architects are
beginning to use these new ideas in buildings they designî (Cunningham, 2002,
p. 1). Since research has already
directly linked facilities and student achievement, further studies on types,
variations, and age of design trends are valuable for continuing to make educational
progress.
Assumptions
1. The sample of participants who
volunteered to respond was representative of Georgia.
2. Survey questionnaire and responses
provide a valid measure of the building facilities.
Limitations of the Study
1.
The schools were provided with e-mail invitations and not all requests
to participate reached
individuals due to server filters and incorrect or outdated e-mail addresses.
2. The administrators participating were
volunteers.
Definitions
1. Physical Environment: Any physical
feature of the building design such as safety
mechanisms,
classroom space, furnishings, technology, and similar physical features of design.
2.
Functional Environment: The
special programs or types of instruction that ìfunctionî or take place in the
physical environment. Examples include preschool or high school programs,
instructional scheduling, and instructional styles, such as team teaching.
3.
Trend: a) As discussed in literature review, a general tendency or
movement; a current style or liking; emphasis in design. b) As discussed in results, a
feature occurring in at least 50% of schools surveyed.
4.
Feature: Any physical or functional component of educational design.
Organization of Study
Chapter 1: This chapter consists of an
introduction, which discusses examples of influences on school design and
provides reference to the importance of further studying existing and emerging
design features. Also included are the following research topics: problem,
purpose, research questions, setting, and significance of study, assumptions,
limitations, and definitions of terms.
Chapter 2: This chapter includes the
review of literature as it relates to the physical and functional environment
and discusses universal trends to consider regarding design features and
considerations: sustainability, efficiency, aesthetics, safety and security,
technology, and collaboration. The
review of literature then follows these considerations by discussing the
remaining individual or categorical features aligned to the survey while
supporting the premise that features are emerging global interests. Examples
are provided from various countries of schools built for the 21st
Century in addition to the United States. The literature review consists of the
following outline: Energy Efficient, Flexible, and Sustained Designs;
Aesthetics; Safety and Security; Collaboration; Classroom Space and
Furnishings; Technology; Organization of Classroom and Administrative Offices;
Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds; Teacher Facilities; Instructional
Strategies and Instructional Opportunities; and Social and Community Use.
Chapter 3: Methodology, research
questions, population and sample, methods, data collection and analysis
Chapter
4: Findings
Chapter 5: Summary of findings,
recommendations, and implications for further research
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
As
existing schools wear out and are renovated, or replaced, certain changes occur
in school designs that might impact student outcomes. These changes and perhaps
trends include features having never been a part of school design, or features
included in school designs previously, but currently having a significant
emphasis. For example, communities have always been a part of education and
schools, but recently they have emerged as an intricate part of school design
and the planning process. These
emergent and emphasized designs exemplify, and in many instances, redefine
educational environments.