Apr 12, 2019

How the HIDDEN Senses Affect Attention and Learning at School



by Zoe Mailloux, OTD, OTR/L, FAOTA

When we teach children about their senses, there is not usually much emphasis on the important role that the sensory systems play in learning. Without our senses, we would have no way of taking in and processing any type of information from the world around us, thus all that we know and do is based on some initial sensory experience. In addition, most classroom lessons on the senses focus on only five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. However, there are two additional senses that are equally important and foundational to our experiences in the world: the position sense and the sense of movement. In this article, we will discuss the ways in which these lesser known senses impact children in classrooms.

The Position Sense (The Sense of Proprioceptive)
This sense tells us about the position of our whole body and how much force we are using during tasks. Through receptors in the muscles, tendons and joints, this sense works “behind the scenes,” helping us to make automatic adjustments that put our bodies in the best position for the task. In a single task we can see a myriad of ways this sense helps us to be efficient and comfortable. For example, we use the position sense to know how close or far we should be away from our desk, how much to bend or extend our arm when writing, how much force to use when pressing on a pencil and how much to adjust, stretch, and move our body to avoid cramping or discomfort while sitting. One of the main considerations related to the position sense at school is that traditional classroom furniture is often not conducive to posture that supports neuromuscular or sensory needs, such that children are often in poor positions for much of their time in the classroom. 

One of the main ways in which the position sense is often compromised at school is due to the common significant mismatch between size of students in relation the chairs and desks they use throughout the day. In fact, several studies suggest that less than 20% of school children sit at chair-desk combinations suitable for their body height. Considering the vast range of height and weight among students and the custom of equipping classrooms with few or sometimes only one size of chairs and desks, it is not surprising that few students find an optimal match. Complicating the equation further is the fact that dimensions for children in the earlier grades change in the same child from the beginning to end of a school year. The situation is compounded by the fact that a great deal of school furniture is out of date and does not conform to minimum orthopedic or physiological requirements.

A simple rule of healthy ergonomics is the 90-90-90 rule. Early orthopedic studies recognized that keeping most joints (i.e. at the head/neck, the elbows, and the hips/knees) at 90˚ angles reduced stress on muscles and joints. Chairs and desks that are not the appropriate size for student make this ergonomically-sound position impossible. 

Position Sense Solutions at School
            Adjustable height chairs and desks offer the best solution to ensuring that students are sitting in optimal positions for learning and paying attention. Office “task” or “swivel” chairs with pneumatic mechanisms provide some of the most cost-effective ways to offer appropriate heights for students. Adjustable height desks are an alternative solution, but they are often more cumbersome to adjust. If adjusting a seat to the optimal height at a table or desks brings the student’s feet off the floor, a small step stool, box or foot ring can be a simple remedy.   Consideration of the placement of visual information, distances between furniture, heights of other classroom materials, such as shelving or hooks, and organization of materials that need to be reached or put away can also improve the positioning used by students throughout their school day.

The Movement Sense (The Vestibular Sense)
The sense of movement detects the pull of gravity and movements of the head, so that we can perceive the way we are moving through the world. Some people may know that this sense has something to do with the feeling of being dizzy when we turn around and that is also the sense that controls balance. However, there are many other important roles of this sensory system which are not commonly known. Like the position sense, the sense of movement operates in an automatic way to support many basic functions. For example, this sense helps us coordinate motions of our eyes and head, in actions such as looking up at a blackboard then back down at a worksheet. Without this sense alerting the eye muscles that the head is moving, the words on the board and page can “jump around” making it difficult to read and to keep our place. 

Since this sense is designed to detect the pull of gravity, it also helps us to keep our head and body upright against. The sense of movement is also our internal “GPS” helping us to know up from down, right from left, etc., in an experiential way, so that we can understand and use these navigational concepts. Neurologically, this sense lays the groundwork for communication between the two sides of the body, thus allowing us to reach across our body midline, coordinate both hands in a task and to develop a dominant had for skills. In addition, this sense is critical to our state of alertness. When we do not move much, or in slow rhythmic ways, our brain interprets this as a signal to relax and sleep. More vigorous movement indicates that it is time to be awake and engaged.

While furniture for adults, especially in the workplace, has offered a myriad of options tailored to individual preferences for decades, the idea that children would benefit from seating that offers motion is only recently becoming acknowledged. Expecting children to “sit still” and learn is a flawed concept. When we sit still, our brains think it is time to go to sleep. Students will naturally try to fight this feeling by fidgeting in their chairs, swaying side to side, or tipping back in their chairs.     

Movement Sense Solutions at School
          Considering the tendency toward more sedentary activities due to increased use of computers and other digital devices, as well as fewer opportunities for movement with less time spent at recess and in physical education, the need to think about and plan “movement breaks” during the school day is more essential than ever. Choices in seating options which provide safe and non-distracting motion for students are also critical. While research with ball-chairs and air-filled seat cushions shows generally favorable results, these options are not very practical in most school settings. Rather, task or “swivel” chairs, noted above as options which provide adjustment for height, also provide side-to-side, and some up-and-down movement, thus are smart options. Classroom style rockers are also a great choice for reading, tablet work and collaborative classroom activities. While teachers are sometimes hesitant to introduce “moving” chairs into classrooms, numerous projects have demonstrated that once the teachers experience the improved attention and learning that occurs with safe and non-distracting motion, they do not want to return to static classroom chairs.

Conclusion
          While the choice of adjustable height, dynamic seating can be a bit more expensive upfront, the potential long-term savings to school districts can be significant. Better attention and behavior can provide not only academic, physical and mental health benefits, but positive financial outcomes as well. Static furniture does not support children’s sensory or learning needs.  Considering that school-age children often spend up to 9 hours sitting per day, those who make decisions about classroom furniture need to be informed about the consequences of poor seating choices. An investment in appropriate, comfortable and supportive classroom furniture is the least we can do to help to ensure success for students. 

Dr. Zoe Mailloux is globally recognized for her expertise in child development, sensory integration, autism, & occupational therapy. With more than 35 years of experience, Zoe has been a champion for increasing understanding of individual differences, with the aim of enhancing participation in meaningful ways, for people of all abilities. With more than 30 years’ experience in executive leadership of non-profit therapy practices, Zoe has been known for developing innovative programs to support children & families.



Facilitating Teachers as Designers of the Learning Environment




By Julie Henderson, Lynda Hayes, Ashley Pennypacker Hill and Jennifer Ramski

P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School at the University of Florida
is one of Florida’s four university lab schools. Established in 1934, P.K. Yonge’s mission is to design, test, and disseminate innovations in K-12 education through serving a diverse student community. As the result of a campus master plan evaluation in 2007, P.K. Yonge began a multi-phase project to reconstruct their K-12 school campus, beginning with the elementary building which opened in 2012.

______________________________________________________

A new state-of-the-art building is scheduled to open for 21 teachers and 350+ students in four months. Input had been provided and was incorporated into the architectural design and construction, but interior design and furniture specifications were not included in the design-build scope. There was no plan for furniture. As future inhabitants of the space, teachers had to be at the center of design choices, but they were also designing the plane while in flight —developing new ways of doing school as the new facility was being constructed.

Building Design and Construction
The design phase of the elementary building at P.K. Yonge began in 2008 with input from many stakeholder groups within and beyond the school community. By the time the project broke ground, teachers were invested, had a deep sense of ownership over the new facility, and more than likely, breathed a sigh of relief.

Once construction began, teachers’ minds were, in large part, refocused on transforming the school program to take advantage of the future architecture: curriculum, schedules, and student groupings. Teachers could take a break from “Should this wall be glass or solid?” and “Where should an electrical outlet be?” and return to the more familiar territory of “How are we going to teach in this space?”

Learning Design
Floor plans were on the table in many meetings, and groups of teachers spent time discussing and developing models of teaching and learning appropriate for a school and learners of the future. With the new facility grounded in a multi-grade learning community model, professional learning focused on developing operational models for learning communities — what they look like, how they function, and how they transform teaching to support all students. As a result, teachers became well-versed in innovative models of education and the learning spaces that support them. They had been experimenting in inflexibly-designed 1950s facilities, but their proposed shifts in teaching practice were seismic. School administrators had been searching for existing schools for to see in action and learn from, but choices were very limited. At this stage, the light was also dawning that this space was going to need furniture.

Learning Space Design
Enter Jennifer Ramski, founding principal of the interior design and planning firm, Ramski & Company. Ramski arrived on the scene with construction nearing completion and a six-week time frame in which to facilitate decision-making for furniture solutions with 21 teachers for a 35,000-square-foot building. The pressure was on and school leaders were determined to have teachers drive the design of the learning spaces.

Challenges were numerous, all in the name of designing a school and model of education that was innovative and truly focused on meeting the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s learners. A two-pronged initiative innovating around architecture and interior design, and driving major shifts in teaching and learning meant that even in their area of expertise teachers didn’t know what they didn’t know. They were in the process of designing new ways of work, new ways of being in their work spaces, and new ways of scheduling and organizing students. So many decisions had to be based on hypotheticals and processes not yet fully tested. In addition, most K-12 educators could not even begin to dream that they would be able to choose new furniture for their existing classrooms, much less design a completely new building and furnish it.

This new facility presented elementary teachers at P.K. Yonge with a huge new space, and then asked them to choose what should be inside it. For a single teacher in a single classroom, this would be challenging enough. Now add seven teachers who have to agree on all the furnishings for the whole learning community. A challenge to say the least, not to mention the added responsibility of making decisions that would impact teachers and students for generations to come.

The decision-making process was further complicated by the added layer of an evolving educational program. Making choices for design and furniture brought to light unclarified details regarding curriculum, teaching and learning, scheduling, and managing student movement in the space needing resolution before final choices could be made. Meetings and conversations about design and furniture were lengthy, detailed, and absolutely necessary. While Ramski & Co. were committed to making teachers dreams come true, efforts were also challenged by space size, wall placement, time frame, and other architectural features already in place.

Facilitating Final Design Choices
After an initial whole-group programming session, it was clear that large group input would not work given the cacophony voices and a rigorous timeline. Ramski and her team shifted gears and developed rapid cycles of decision-making. A core committee for furniture was established with representation from each of the learning communities (K/1, 2/3, 4/5) and two elementary teacher leaders. Givens were established by the teachers to help refine the focus and streamline conversations: flexibility, modes and preferences for teaching and learning, space, time frame, and storage needs, among others. Ramski’s team developed and administered surveys for the whole faculty from which designs were developed and shared with the core furniture committee for feedback. New designs were developed based on teacher input, presented to the committee, and the cycle continued. At certain points, larger groups were brought together to finalize input for each specific learning community’s needs, and forced decisions were made.

Knowing that teachers have high levels of expertise in “making do,” Ramski was committed to giving teachers what they wanted. It became immediately evident that the capacity to listen to what was being said ‘behind and underneath’ the teachers’ words was critical, and to know that silence meant that teachers were not in agreement, weren’t feeling heard, and were retreating back to their well-honed “make do” mode. It was also critical to find pathways for teachers to work in true partnership with designers and for the design team to know their teachers as clients. Teachers knew what they wanted to do, and Ramski and her team knew the market. This partnership meant that choices could be made with optimal expertise on both sides of the designer-educator project team.

With expert facilitation, deeply-invested teacher input was solicited and incorporated into all aspects of decision-making. Design choices were made, furniture selected, and amazingly (kudos to the teams) move-in day took place as planned.

Post-project Observations
Fast forward six years and a retrospective view tells us the process has been a success. The school enjoys interest from around the world in its architecture, design, and innovative teaching practices. With maximum flexibility as a guiding principle, the space successfully supports the innovation and change integral to the school’s culture and mission. 

Hindsight always provides such clarity and wisdom. Observations on the process, coupled with post-occupancy evaluations are critical in informing professional practices for designers and educators engaging in a project of this magnitude, and the educator-design team gained much from the experience of Phase 1 of the campus rebuild. With Phase 2 to break ground in 2019, much of the wisdom gained from the designer-educator partnership from Phase 1 is being incorporated into a process for the secondary building that promises excellent outcomes and fewer sleepless nights!

Interior Design Process Observations and Tips

●     Start early in design — Being included in the schematic design phase allows for critical opportunities to listen and for teams to develop trust.


●     Include teachers in the planning and programming — Teacher input at the schematic design phase is the expert voice in the use and functionality of spaces and furniture.

●     Hire experienced professionals with education experience — Design professionals with education experience have an enhanced capacity to listen “behind and underneath” what teachers are saying.


●     Include teachers and designers in professional development — The team learns and discovers together and ensures expertise of both teams is utilized.

●     Experiment with samples — Hypotheticals or drawings are inadequate for choosing options that best work in spaces and with children as occupants. Teachers must have a chance to use samples with their students.

●     Specify budget and what teachers want — Include sizes, colors, and finishes. This saves time during the bidding process.

●     Engage the facilities manager during purchasing, installation, and transfer of ownership — Include warranties, cleaning instructions (especially fabrics), and maintenance requirements.

●     Focus on keeping everyone “on board” — A new facility is such a great celebration! Make sure everyone feels that way!



School Leadership Observations

●     Teaching and learning continues to evolve — Furnishings chosen for maximum flexibility can be reorganized annually as teachers and students learn and grow into the space.

●     Teachers need walls — Display spaces and teaching walls are essential for supporting student learning and celebrating student work. Don’t underestimate how much!

●     Storage needs are vital — Teachers and students have “stuff” and it all needs to go somewhere.

●     Teaching and learning shift in response to architecture — They don’t shift on their own. Professional learning and commitment are critical to staying the course and changing the future for our children.




This article is based on the EDspaces 2018 presentation by Julie Henderson, Director of Communications at P.K. Yonge; Lynda Hayes, Director at P.K. Yonge; Ashley Pennypacker Hill, Director of Student and Family Services at P.K. Yonge; and Jennifer Ramski, Principal at Ramski & Company.


Mar 13, 2019

How the Agile Classroom Impacts Student Engagement



By Jolene Levin, Director, Norva Nivel, USA

Teachers are increasingly challenged to engage students. Traditional classrooms with rows of desks and chalkboards in the front of the room aren’t conducive to meeting students’ needs, particularly in our fast-paced society, where information, visuals and messages compete for their attention. The classroom of the past — too often today’s classroom —is a motionless venue that lacks inspiration and does not deliver the essentials for building an enthusiasm for learning.
A recent study conducted by MDR, a division of Dun & Bradstreet, and the Education Market Association, found that approximately 94% of the more than 1,600 teachers polled agreed that the design of a learning space impacts students’ success. The study highlighted the importance of flexibility and collaboration, technology integration and intentional design in modern classroom spaces. 
In 2010, we visited our first school. Listening to the school’s principal, teaching staff and students, we unearthed their challenges and needs. Their frustrations centered on the fact that most learning spaces aren’t customizable and do not accommodate a variety of learning styles. They do not address individual student needs and cannot adapt to varied subjects and teaching styles. The educators and administrators we’ve spoken with stress that the classroom needs to be relevant and vital, in keeping with ever-evolving technologies and what’s required to capture students’ attention.
We see the challenge surrounding engagement increasing exponentially over time. An assistant principal put it this way: “It doesn’t matter what quality of curriculum you deliver; if they’re not engaged in the practices that you’re delivering, it counts for nothing.” This is why we’ve developed an advanced and innovative version of the “agile classroom,” a learning environment designed to meet a complex variety of student, teacher and district needs.
The Agile Classroom
Some call it the future of education. Education experts call it the agile or flexible classroom. Based on its transformational attributes, we know it defines what’s possible in education today. George Lucas’s educational foundation, Edutopia, says this: “While a classroom is different from a [business] startup, certain mindsets and strategies translate well: vision, agility, the right tools, creative thinking, and recognizing individual strengths. An agile classroom is an environment in which students are motivated to do their best work and feel invested in the class as a whole.”
Engagement is one descriptor that repeatedly emerges when education experts describe this learning environment. It generates superior student outcomes, adapting to a diverse range of learners — from cognitive to hands on. This goes beyond how specific students learn best by offering accelerated growth regardless of learning style. This growth builds confidence and cognitive abilities in large part through the physical attributes of agile spaces. In our work transforming classrooms, libraries, collaborative learning spaces and presentation areas, we’ve heard countless teachers and school administrators affirm the efficacy of agile learning spaces.
They report student outcomes being impacted in tangible ways, such as:
-       An increased sense of ownership and pride by students in their learning spaces and educational process, plus the ability for teachers to more easily motivate them;
-       The benefits of movement as well as adaptability, which supports all teaching styles, learning styles and subjects;
-       The breakdown and removal of barriers to learning, based on varying student populations and individual needs, inclinations and tendencies.

Fostering The Ownership Mindset
Technology has demonstrably impacted society in several ways, learning being one. America’s classroom is one of the last holdouts and it’s in dire need of evolution. Transitioning from the acquisition of knowledge through instructional teaching, learners are now being encouraged to develop the 6 Cs, a set of skills transferable to any learning activity and ultimately any profession. With this shift, the need to change educational spaces is essential. The key is to create modern learning spaces, classrooms and environments that cater to students’ individual needs and learning styles. Then, to show educators successful methods for motivating and engaging students, which include getting students to embrace the ownership or accountability mindset.
The agile class gives students the power to decide how they learn and from whom; it offers more choice, promoting a sense of ownership, control and agency. Guided by their teachers, students are empowered to think and make smart choices. This empowerment nurtures a sense of proprietorship. We’ve seen these learning environments completely change the classroom dynamic. Teachers regularly comment on how their students are driven as never before and how their spaces capture kids’ attention, even high-energy learners.
Agile spaces help teachers motivate and engage students in a lasting way. And, because they can quickly and effortlessly be changed based on subject matter, class requirements, student needs and other factors, classrooms don’t become dated, stale or obsolete. Moreover, the flexible classroom teaches skills, not just knowledge —facilitated by the space itself and the relationship the learner has with it. Students are guided through strategic facilitation by the teacher but have an ownership stake in the learning environment and how it’s structured. They experience movement, diversity and choice in their relation to their classrooms.
Movement Matters
Studies show that movement in the classroom setting builds focus and improves learning outcomes. We’ve observed thousands of students acquire more balance, focus and accountability through the movement that agile spaces provide. Learners acquire transversal skills, those relevant to future jobs and occupations and lifelong learning. These skills can be acquired through education or training if the setting is right.
We believe that all truly flexible learning spaces should be able to be reconfigured in 60 seconds or less, by even the youngest of learners. With straightforward guidance from their teacher, learners can modify their environments quickly and intentionally. This requires concurrent physical and analytical engagement that students steer, helping them take charge of and responsibility for learning.
Another example of movement in a learning space is having tables at various heights in a classroom. Versus a series of static or even height-adjustable tables, this variety encourages students to freely move from one workspace to another. Standing height tables create the opportunity for movement and increased blood flow, with physical as well as cognitive benefits. At a standing height table, students can use a balance board, which we incorporate into our agile classrooms. In doing so, they fuse physical (body) control with concentration and focus (mind) requirements.
Removing Barriers to Learning
Whether they’re visual or hands-on learners, or those requiring additional support, every student must be involved so they can learn and thrive. Using agile furniture, such as moveable and multipurpose tables; storage that doubles as seating or work surfaces; a varied selection of workspaces; lightweight, movable seats and other adaptable features, each space has the flexibility to be quickly rearranged and transformed into a unique, subject-appropriate setting —one that’s visually appealing, smart and that involves the student at a deeper level.
In addition to creating spaces specific to an activity, flexible learning environments can be reconfigured according to student and teacher needs, breaking down obstacles to learning. Students can select their preferred workspace or create their own. When they are in a space where they feel more comfortable or safe, they are better able to retain information and are more engaged. In addition, to more effectively utilize the space and engage, our classroom furniture designs always include versatility. We make use of walls, floors and the entire room, enabling teachers to have kids stand during certain aspects of the lesson, sit during others and balance (seated or standing) for others. This exemplifies complete engagement and helps kids manage their energy levels.
We’ve had hundreds of teachers and school administrators tell us that the empowerment students acquire enables introverted learners to shine. One principal emailed us recently saying “Our best teachers are saying that with the agile classroom, kids are more likely to collaborate with students they would ordinarily not interact with. They are inspired, self-motivated and less likely to be intimidated by personal or environmental limitations.”
The Future is Now
The right lighting, comfort elements, technology and customization are essential but without agile features, today’s classroom is incomplete. The agile classroom offers immediate and complete customization; they are completely adaptive and modular. Today’s classroom cannot remain static. Our youth have a tremendous amount of energy that needs to be harnessed for absorbing and retaining information. An agile classroom combines physical and cognitive elements of learning that helps students acquire a true sense of ownership. It breaks down barriers in education and addresses a broader array of learning needs and styles.
The multifunctional and adaptive characteristics of the agile classroom help our educational system evolve in our fast-paced, ever-changing society to engage more students. In all classrooms, the role of the teacher cannot be underestimated. In agile environments, the teacher acts as a facilitator, nurturing a sense of proprietorship and deeper interest in learning. They guide kids through the decision-making process and make deeper engagement possible.
Undeniably, these flexible education spaces offer elements that adapt to the needs of teachers and students alike. Greater choice means kids are more actively engaged in the learning process, which inevitably produces better outcomes in all types of learners.
All educators we’ve conferred with agree: stagnancy hinders engagement and a lifelong passion for learning. To spark ownership, agency and empowerment, learning environments must be relevant today and remain that way well into the future. This is what the agile classroom delivers.

Jolene Levin is a director at NorvaNivel USA, designers and manufacturers of educational furniture and learning spaces, which are made in the U.S.  For more information, visit https://norvanivel.com/.





The Power is in the Process: University Planning & Development Via Community Engagement



By Dana Muller, AIA, LEED AP

Systemic change is hard — especially in education. In 2009, when Gensler began working with Lynn University to mesh their 2020 academic vision with a new master plan, we knew our approach had to be different. How could we plan for, support, and enable growth with so many diverse stakeholders at play? The answer was a unique strategy of community engagement. Here’s how we got it done.

What Community Engagement Means
The first step in engaging with the community is identifying stakeholders. Stakeholders are those people or entities who have a role to play in the success of your endeavor. Here, we knew our community ranged from long-tenured faculty and a growing population of students, to local zoning, traffic and neighborhood officials. Lynn and Gensler decided to face these challenges head-on and seek stakeholder input from the early stage of planning.

The next step was to begin the visioning process, in which we identify consistent messages, aspirations, and our constraints. Success in this area requires openness to other people’s ideas and the strength to do what’s best for the campus mission and community.

Some consistent themes that came out of our visioning process for the master plan at Lynn included:
  • Fundraising and building a new student center at the heart of campus
  • Building a new residence hall to keep students on campus in a pedestrian-centric environment
  • Modernizing academic classroom
  • Creating a more sustainable campus
  • Resolving parking and traffic issues that were a concern to the city
Seeking stakeholder input can be scary, but it made a world of difference in our effort. When your team is heard it communicates that you care about what they think. While every verbalized concern, wish and dream cannot be accommodated, your team will be behind you if you have treated their concerns with the highest level of consideration.

Start with the board, the faculty, and the staff – but don’t leave out the students, the city, or the neighbors in the master planning process. With Lynn, we identified and met with 350 stakeholders. We held 29 individual interviews and involved hundreds of faculty, staff, and students in visioning sessions held over a period of many weeks. We made it clear we were interested in hearing what was important to them. We sought their buy-in and made sure they felt heard.

This process resulted in markers of success for our master plan that became our mission and goals:
  • Foster chances for financial growth
  • Develop physical character of the campus
  • Integrate sustainability
  • Fortify relations with the community
  • Enhance the academic environment
  • Design to improve campus life
How Community Engagement Supports Growth
This next step involved laying the groundwork for the growth the master plan envisioned. We began immediately on an infrastructure and academic curriculum assessment and established sustainable goals:

1) Vehicle circulation
We had to come up with a plan to gradually adjust vehicular traffic to campus perimeter. This was key to realizing the pedestrian-friendly campus that all stakeholders desired.

2) Pedestrian circulation
Gensler’s research on walkable cities tells us that a walkable distance is considered about 1,300 feet — roughly, a five-minute walk. To create the walkable campus that was a goal of the visioning process, the master plan located critical student services to the center of the campus within a walkable five minutes of each other.

3) Landscape approach
Achieving a more sustainable campus was not only a goal of the students and faculty, university leadership also recognized that it’s good business. We worked with Lynn and their landscape architect to develop a landscape master plan to return the plant material on campus to a native, low-maintenance solution and implement a 100% reclaimed water irrigation system using city reclaimed water. There were 90 million gallons of drinking water saved at the end of the first four years.

4) Renewable energy
We worked with Siemens to put a new chilled water plant on campus to serve future development and plan to implement other innovative renewable energy strategies in the future.

5) Storm water
Before we could proceed with any new development, a storm water infrastructure plan — “The Lakes Master plan” — had to be put in place. An unexpected result of improving these lakes was a significant savings in maintenance from turning them back to a more naturally maintained ecosystem.
Lynn also set some aggressive sustainability goals for themselves. We were inspired by their goals and encourage all our master planning clients to do the same. They set out to reduce energy consumption by 70% against a “business as usual” baseline, and to do the same in a reduction of potable water use and water used for irrigation by 50% and 70%, respectively. Likewise, Lynn aimed at reducing solid waste sent to the landfill by 20% while increasing the selection of native and adapted planting to a minimum of 30% of all plants.

Lynn’s success in measures of this nature were inspirational. Every year, the university diverts a total of 11% of campus waste through a growing recycling program. Their reduction in energy usage was so dramatic the month after replacing gymnasium lights with LED and adding occupancy sensors that the power company came out to see if something was wrong with the meter.
When it came to further improvements to physical infrastructure, Lynn immediately focused on adjusting storm water retention, energy usage, upgrading campus infrastructure and driving development and fundraising. 

One priority was the chilled water plant. Multi-colored pipes were used as a tool in educating students about sustainability. The chilled water infrastructure upgrade – along with updates to electrical infrastructure – saved four million kilowatts of energy in the first four years of operation. That is the equivalent of taking 589 cars off the road for one year and translates to an equivalent greenhouse gas reduction of 2,722 metric tons. 

The Outcomes: What Does Community Engagement Enable?
The last step is to achieve actual growth. We knew that development would be critical to any construction projects, so, arm in arm with Lynn, we sought to build with a mission and purpose. No construction was to occur unless is was to build nimble and flexible spaces that integrate long-term, sustainable strategies. We leveraged the master plan with stakeholders to improve buy-in, excite change and inspire new ideas.

Donors became invigorated when they saw Lynn’s commitment to bettering the campus and how invested the stakeholders were in the master plan’s forward motion. As the chilled water plant set the groundwork for growth, that investment by the University inspired the donation of a new athletic facility to support the National Champion Soccer and Lacrosse teams, a new Business School and a new housing building. We are now looking forward to celebrating the success of this master plan and the generous gift of another long time supporter of the University on February 7, 2019, when we complete the fifth new building and 11th project on campus, the University Center.

Every aspect of this initiative’s success is a testament to what community engagement can achieve. An approach like this combined with Lynn University’s open-minded, progressive leadership is an inspirational blueprint for how to design for education’s growth. 

Dana Muller, AIA, LEED AP is a Senior Associate at Gensler. She brings more than 15 years of experience in the design and execution of spaces for learning to her role as Education Practice Area leader in Gensler’s Tampa office.




Feb 15, 2019

Purposeful Design Impacts Student Engagement



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.