by Dalane
E. Bouillion, Ed.D., Yanira
Oliveras-Ortiz, Ph.D., and Lizzy
Asbury, Ed.D.
School
architects indicate that their designs really impact the learning environment.
But how do we know that they do? Does design improve learning, or do they
merely impact the built environment? Sure, a beautiful new structure can
provide a facelift in a community, but until recently the scholarly research
was void of evidence that design actually impacted student engagement. A mixed-methods
scholarly study was conducted, with the approval of The University of Texas at
Tyler, to determine what impact two new schools, both designed by VLK
Architects, had on student engagement.
A
Unique Opportunity
VLK
Architects had the unique opportunity to design two replacement elementary
schools in the Houston area around the same time. Both schools were designed on
the existing site, and the attendance boundaries of the schools remained
intact. Therefore, the same staff, and the same students were moved from the
existing school to the replacement school. Although the academic achievement
levels in both schools were already high, the team wanted to study the impacts
of the new designs on student engagement. In order to fully comprehend the
impact of the new environments, the researchers gathered the perceptions of
students via focus groups, and teachers, via an online survey. A conceptual
framework of student engagement (Schlechty, 2001), with a deep understanding of
the scholarly definition and engagement levels drove the protocols established
for both student focus groups, and the teacher survey.
Methods
In
order to produce a trustworthy study, precautions were taken to ensure
reliability and validity. For the student focus groups, triangulation was
achieved in a variety of ways. First, three researchers conducted the
interviews in order to review and agree that patterns surfaced in the
interviews. Additionally, multiple sources (students and teachers) were
included in the study to establish various points of view; common themes
presented by both types of participants comprise the conclusions of this
study. Reflexivity was accomplished, as
the biases of the researchers were identified, and the research team worked to
keep them minimized. Rather than contradicting a participant, the team probed
to understand more about a point of view when disagreement could have surfaced.
Finally, negative case sampling techniques were used to determine additional
perspectives that were not anticipated. Outlying responses that were
infrequently gathered were studied to determine if they should be considered as
an alternate point of view. The study resulted in conclusions that naturally
presented themselves via grounded inferencing, rather than establishing a
protocol of questions that led the participants in one direction.
Teachers’
perceptions of their students’ engagement were of interest. Teachers at both
campuses were invited to complete an online survey to assist with balancing
perceptions regarding the impact of the design on student engagement. Teachers
volunteering to participate also completed an online consent form prior to accessing the survey. Teachers were able to complete the survey at
their convenience within a two-week period. Given that teacher participation was voluntary, the goal was to have at
least 50% participation; however, the researchers were pleased with the 77%
participation rate. The researchers ensured that the teacher responses included
in the data analysis only included those teachers who worked both in the old
building as well as in the new replacement campus.
Findings: Students’ Perceptions
Student focus groups yielded three
significant themes:
(1)
the new spaces and the impact those have on their overall
school experience, (2) the impact going to a new school has had on their
engagement in learning, and (3) the changes in their teachers since moving to
the replacement school” (Oliveras-Ortiz, Bouillion, & Asbury, 2017).
These three themes were
then organized based on the students’ perceptions in the way that they
articulated their beliefs.
Students shared their strong beliefs about more “room to
learn and explore” in the new schools citing feelings of “freedom and
comfort” (Oliveras-Ortiz et al., 2017) due to the better circulation within the
campus, the feelings of openness due to deliberate natural light, and the
spaciousness of their new classrooms. Students now feel as if they can
accommodate their materials in order to learn in a variety of spaces within the
building. Specifically, they talked about the collaboration areas that extend
their learning environment in a variety of ways, making them capable to working
on group projects, or with partners in ample space.
Students
were acutely aware of their commitment to doing work, or their levels of
increased engagement in the new schools. They reported that it was more fun to
learn in the new buildings, could spread out their materials, and had
connections to specialized spaces such as Makerspaces and Science labs, where content
specific tasks specific helped them, and even made them feel special. Writeable
magnetic white walls designed to allow students to use the classroom as an
instructional tool were preferred by the students. They felt they supported
their interest in assigned tasks, and allowed for maximized instructional time.
Lastly,
students reported that their teachers were happier since moving into the new
buildings. They perceived teachers smiled more, and contributed much of this
happiness to the teachers’ ability to better organize materials due to
increased storage. They were also appreciative that all teachers has a room to
call his or her own.
Findings: Teachers’
Perceptions
Teacher surveys revealed their
perceptions of students’ engagement levels and habits using a Likert scale. The
top three statements with the most support of agreement are detailed below in a
table. Teachers found that since moving to the new schools, students were “more
engaged in learning”, “spend more time working collaboratively”, and “are
prouder to be part of our school” (Oliveras-Ortiz et al., 2017).
Teachers’
Perceptions of Student Engagement
Statement
|
Percentage
|
Mean
Score
|
“Since moving to the new
building, our students are more engaged in learning”
|
75.5
|
2.98
|
“Since moving to the new building, our
students spend more time working collaboratively”
|
89.7
|
3.20
|
“Since moving to the new building, our
students are prouder to be part of our school”
|
93.8
|
3.31
|
Conclusions
This research indicates that design does positively impact
student engagement in learning. Specifically, three main themes emerged that
should function as critical attributes for designing replacement elementary
schools. First, “purposefully designed learning space” (Oliveras-Ortiz
et al., 2017) should scaffold the
process with every space designed to be a learning space. Secondly, schools
should be created with “spaces designed to foster student engagement” (Oliveras-Ortiz
et al., 2017) which requires an
understanding of teaching and learning, curricular intentions, and student
preferences with regard to personalizing their learning. Lastly, architects
should “design to support teaching and learning” which necessitates a deep
understanding of curriculum and instruction, as well as child development and
current teaching methodologies. This groundbreaking study is important to the
future of education, as educators and architects should be working on a design
team together, influencing one another. Our built environment has the potential
to impact learning; therefore, engagement. “Without
engagement…there is little likelihood that students will learn that which it is
intended they learn (Schlechty, 2001, p. 64).
About the Authors
Dalane E. Bouillion, Ed.D. is the Principal│Educational Planner
for VLK│Architects. Yanira Oliveras-Ortiz, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at The
University of Texas as Tyler. Lizzy Asbury, Ed.D. is the Chief Executive Officer of
TransCend4.
References
Oliveras-Ortiz, Y., Bouillion, D., & Asbury, L. (2017). The impact of learning environments on student engagement. (Research Report). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uttyler.edu/edulead_fac/25/
Schlechty, P.C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
No comments:
Post a Comment