Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
School Design: Researching Children’s Views
Rokhshid Ghaziani
[email protected]
Introduction
Children of school age spend a considerable part of their lives (around six hours
a day and over one thousand hours a year) at school and they are constantly
interacting with the physical environment of their schools. Therefore, it can be
argued that children have a wealth of experience, knowledge and opinions,
especially regarding places familiar to them such as schools. Thus, it is important
to explore children's own ways of seeing and naming issues of concern, their
special needs, and spaces needed to support activities and aesthetic
preferences. However, it seems there is still a lack of children’s involvement in
the school design process. This may partly be because of the challenges
academics, practitioners and policy makers face in determining which methods
are appropriate for listening to the views of children and ensuring their effective
participation.
Therefore, this paper aims to provide guidance for involvement of children
in the school design process by sharing my experiences of employing a variety of
research methods in a project which sought to elicit the views of children (aged
5-7) in two infant schools in Sheffield
Literature review
Studies exploring the impact of physical learning environments have concluded
that physical elements in the school built fabric can be shown to have noticeable
effects on students (see e.g. TACIR, 2003, Higgins et al, 2005). Dudek (2000)
believes that the physical environment of schools is deemed to have an effect on
the success of the children, not only academically but also socially. This is similar
to the view expressed by Sanoff (1992), which points out that the business of
1
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
schools is not to ensure academic performance alone. According to Dudek
(2000), school is an institution intended to nurture, care for and educate pupils. It
has been stated that both the quality of student life and education are directly
affected by the quality of school environment (Sanoff, 1992: 41).
A review of relevant literature identified that there appeared to be a gulf
between children and designers. As Lawson (1997: 85) has discussed, architects
tend to have relatively little contact with the users of buildings - the
communication between them frequently being indirect. However, the need to
involve children in the design process has been stressed by designerresearchers such as Sanoff (1992: 2). Titman (1994) found that, whilst there was
a great deal of research concerning children, far less actually involved children.
Hart (1997) also comments that of the many hundreds of projects in his files
involving environmental actions by children, very few describe a process for
involving children in research.
Research studies from around the world have pointed out that children
gravitate naturally to a purposeful engagement with their material world, and that
they have strong feelings and a lot of implicit knowledge about the environments
they use every day (Hart, 1997; Chawla, 2001). For example, there are studies
concerned with how young children (aged 3-5 years) can play an active role in
designing and developing children’s spaces (Clark, 2007). In addition, three
projects have been published in the UK involving the investigation of children’s
and young people’s opinions about their schools. ‘The School I’d Like’ (Burke
and Grosvenor, 2003, Birkett, 2001a and 2001b) was not conducted as a formal
piece of academic research but in the form of a competition in which children
were asked to describe or design ‘the school they’d like’. A significant number of
children aged between 5 and 18 years participated. According to Burke and
Grosvenor (2003), many entries to the competition were clearly influenced by the
teachers who provided a structure for the exercise. The task, to write an essay
on ‘the ideal school’ or ‘what you would change about school’, was in many
2
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
cases set as homework. The results of this competition indicated that children
would like a school that is beautiful, comfortable, safe, flexible, relevant and
respectful. In addition, they claimed they wanted a school for everybody (Ibid).
‘Joinedupdesignforschools’ (Sorrell and Sorrell, 2005) was another study
that aimed to identify what children and young people normally wanted to change
in their schools and how the related design solutions could lead to useful
improvements in their schools. The majority of innovative projects have involved
secondary schools or older children in primary schools. The list of ‘common
issues’ was narrowed down to eleven, including ‘colour, communication, dining
rooms and canteens, learning spaces, reception areas, reputation and identity,
sixth form spaces, social spaces, storage, toilets and uniform, plus one special
issue – the whole school plan. Following on from this, the ‘Young Design
Programme’ (The Sorrell Foundation, 2006 and 2007) was developed which
matched up pupils in primary and secondary schools with university students and
practicing designers. The conclusions were quite similar to those raised in
joinedupdesignforschools, but the reporting was limited.
It can be argued that these projects have not actively collated all the
relevant design factors in a form that would provide a useful framework for
architects and designers to use in the school design process. Nor did any of
these three studies put forward appropriate methods for the involvement of
children from different age groups in this process. In fact, there have been very
few studies involving children aged five to seven years in the context of school
design (see Clark, 2010). Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence as to
whether this age group of children can reasonably be expected to possess the
cognitive and communication skills needed for meaningful qualitative enquiry.
Therefore, this paper presents and discusses the results of exploratory
qualitative studies conducted with children in two infant schools. The aims of
these studies were to identify ways in which children aged 5-7 can be involved in
3
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
this type of research and to determine their concerns about their school
environment.
Bridging the gap between children and designers
A review of the literature reveals that consultation over school buildings in the
past has tended to centre on educators, and has thus omitted any direct
involvement of students (Woolner et al, 2005). The need to involve school users
in the design process has been stressed by designer-researchers such as Sanoff
(1992), who believes that achieving more effective educational facilities relies
upon an approach rooted in the recognition of the building’s users. He suggests
that those who actually occupy or use school buildings are seldom able to
influence the way in which they are designed, with nearly all the important
decisions being taken by others (most of whom do not occupy the buildings
eventually constructed), based on factors that have little to do with the way
people either use or are affected by school buildings.
Recent research confirms a similar situation in the context of contemporary
school procurement routes in England (Parnell et al, 2008). A great deal of
school architecture is commissioned by clients who are not necessarily school
users (local governments for example) and direct communication between
designers and users has often been limited to one or two school representatives
– namely headteachers or other senior managers (Ibid).
Even so, there is increasing certainty that children should take part in
decision making (Burke and Grosvenor, 2003; Clark et al, 2003) on school
design (DfES, 2002). Therefore, it appears necessary to add a further dimension
to the process of consultation associated with the current school building
programmes to find out to what extent the views of children and young people
should have an impact on decisions and how best they can be consulted.
4
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Methods for engaging children in research
There is a range of methods which can be used for asking children their opinions;
and they vary in usefulness according to the age group of the children
concerned. A review of the various methods shows that there are two main
classifications used in research involving children: ‘evaluative’ methods and
‘creative’ methods (Ghaziani, 2009).
There are a number of evaluative methods which may be applied.
According to Sanoff et al (2001), the rating scale is a form of evaluation which
systematically assesses an environment relative to defined objectives and
requirements. The methods which are usually used for evaluation are photo
questionnaire, interviews, wish poems (Ibid) and smiley/sad faces (Cox and
Robinson-Pant, 2003). Photo questionnaires and interviews are effective means
for eliciting evaluative comments about physical settings (Sanoff et al, 2001),
while using smiley and sad faces, especially with young children, is an effective
technique for discussion of good and bad points in their learning environment,
which can be used to highlight the aspects of the school which children like or
dislike (Ibid). Even very young children can use this method to express their own
feelings (Greig and Taylor, 1999: 118). Finally, a wish poem can be used, which
is an approach that encourages children to fantasise about their dream school: to
allow for the free flow of information (Sanoff et al, 2001: 20).
When children do ‘create’ visual data, the methods employed are usually
photographs and drawings.Studies have revealed how, when children become
active photographers, they provide much insight (Christensen and James, 2008:
160). Children can take pictures of different spaces about which they have good
or bad feelings. The pictures can then be used to discuss and illustrate issues.
Recent studies have worked more extensively with children’s own photographic
view of primary school settings (Clark and Moss, 2001). Nevertheless, ethical
guidelines should be established about how images are to be used at the time
and afterwards (Prosser, 1992). Images need further discussion and
5
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
interpretation, preferably in dialogue with the child, to avoid misinterpretation
(Coates, 2004; Prosser, 1998).
Another method by which children can express their views about their
environment is drawing (Sanoff et al, 2001: 14). Drawing as a visual strategy can
help children to clarify a point under discussion (Cox and Robinson-Pant, 2003).
Children’s drawings are believed to reveal what they think; however, drawings
may be subject to false interpretations by the researcher, and it is, thus, essential
to correlate these with a selection of other sources of information and to operate
in an open exploratory way with children and their drawings (Greig and Taylor,
1999: 79). To increase the validity of data, researchers tend to use a combination
of methods of data collection (Lewis and Lindsay, 1999: 193). Therefore,
incorporating other methods, such as wish poems and interviews, can help
researchers to understand the story behind children’s drawings and improve the
quality of data analysis. In addition, a tour, led by children, of their physical
environment, can help them to express their knowledge about their environment
in a physical, verbal and visual way by walking through a space while talking
about their experiences of that space (Clark, 2010).
In seeking the views of children in the context of school design, two studies
were conducted in order to test a number of the possible methods discussed
above and a range of methods were used to enable children to make a
contribution. Photography was used in both studies as photographs taken by
children appeared to allow them to explore their way of seeing what was of value
to them. In addition, interviews and a child led tour were used for both studies,
enabling child participants to guide the researcher around the classroom or the
whole school environment and indicate important features from their
perspectives. It was also possible to discuss children’s concerns, but a variety of
methods had to be used depending on the age group. Therefore, in the first
study, which involved children aged 5-6 years, drawing was used as a method as
their writing skills were usually limited; however, in the second study, as the
6
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
children (aged 6-7 years) were able to write their views (to some extent), an open
questionnaire was used to note their concerns and the changes they suggested
for their schools.
Ethics and consent
Ethical issues are especially important for child and young person centred
research, vulnerability of children being one such consideration. As Lansdown
(1994: 35) argues, children are vulnerable in two respects. Firstly, they are
inherently vulnerable because of their physical weakness and their lack of
knowledge and experience. Secondly, they are structurally vulnerable ‘because
of their total lack of political and economic power and their lack of civil rights’.
Moreover, one of the biggest challenges for researchers working with
children is the disparities in power and status between adults and children. As
Mayall (1994: 11) states, discussions about data collection with, from and for
children tend to focus on certain perceived problems: children cannot tell the
truth; children make things up to satisfy the interviewer; children do not have
enough experience or knowledge to comment on their experience, or indeed to
report it carefully. This restrictive view of children has been questioned, with
many researchers accepting the notion that children are experts in their own lives
(Clark, 2004) and as such are able to give reliable testimonies (Fielding and
Conroy, 1992; Spencer and Flin, 1990).
In addition, gaining access to children for conducting research is a complex
process as there are ‘gatekeepers’, who are defined by Hek et al. (1996: 73) as
people who are attempting to safeguard the interests of others. Gaining
permission from the adult gatekeeper should not alone be seen as ensuring
immediate access to the child. Instead, the adult gatekeeper should be seen as
giving his or her permission to approach the child to ask him or her if they would
like to take part in the research process (Mandell, 1991).
7
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Therefore, within the context of schools, obtaining consent from pupils
usually involves lengthy negotiations with headteachers, parents, and teachers.
They are all involved in the process of gaining access to the views of children.
On the other hand, participation and consent by pupils is not entirely under
pupils’ control (as adults usually make the initial decision regarding children’s
participation) and, for the purpose of gaining consent from parents and
guardians, a researcher should disclose as much information as possible about
the study beforehand.
In order to obtain permission for this research, there were two stages to
pass: 1) gaining authorization from the School of Architecture at the University of
Sheffield by completing ethical forms and sending all the information related to
the research to the university, 2) obtaining permission from those under the
schools’ authority: headteachers, children and parents. The information sheets
for headteachers, children and parents as well as the consent forms for each,
along with the ethical forms, were submitted to the School of Architecture at the
University of Sheffield, to obtain the necessary approval before the start of data
collection.
For this study, gaining permission from appropriate authorities took a
considerable amount of time. Afterwards, the schools were contacted by
telephone and email in order to ascertain their willingness to participate in the
study. Most of the schools were unwilling to get involved. Finally, after obtaining
permission from two infant schools in Sheffield, the data collection phase of the
research started. As planned with school headteachers and teachers, data
collection was conducted separately with pupils in different classes during a
school day, based on each class’s schedule and possible free time. In the first
school, about half of the children in each class filled in their consent forms, and
only these pupils participated in the study. The aim of the study and its different
stages were explained to the children. Afterwards, the children were given
8
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
stickers as a thank you for their participation in the study and for a few children
this tiny reward provided motivation to participate.
In the second school the situation differed in that parental permission was
gained for all the children to participate in the study as part of their curriculum
during the school day. Therefore, they were not able to opt out of participation
completely as they were under teacher supervision. Actually, it was observed by
the researcher that children seemed to be happy and excited to participate in this
study. During the study none of them appeared to be bored or tired. Neither did
any of the children ask to opt out of participation (possibly because they were not
given that option). It can be argued, however, that children should have more
freedom of choice over their participation: even if research is conducted as part
of their curriculum. At the beginning, the children were given a short explanation
and a task involving thinking and writing about buildings and spaces. They were
also notified briefly about different parts of the study. Their teachers were with
the researcher to help students as necessary. Although there was no reward for
them at the end of study, the children were active participants and happy to be
involved and share their opinions.
Children’s involvement in research: Study 1
This study was carried out in March 2006 in an infant school which was built circa
1974. After getting permission from the headteacher, parents and teachers, only
those pupils who had submitted in their consent form (signed by parents)
participated. The participants were pupils in Year 1, who had already been in
school for up to one full academic year. The ages of the children were between 5
and 6 years. They were 30 children in 3 different classrooms. The study focused
on the classroom environment which is an important area of a school for children
because it is the zone in which they spend most of their time (Dudek, 2000). The
aim was to assess children’s preferences in relation to the classroom
environment. Several methods were used for the study, including photography
(photo elicitation), drawing, and interviews.
9
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
The first method used was photo elicitation, for which the children were
divided into groups of 3 or 4, and then were asked to take photos of the features
of their classroom that they thought were ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Children who had
difficulty taking photos themselves asked the researcher to take the photo(s) on
their behalf. Afterwards, each group was able to view their photos on a computer
and discuss why they liked or disliked those particular parts of their classroom. In
order to acquire a deeper insight into children’s views, another method was used
which proved very effective for eliciting their responses. Children were first asked
to draw their existing classroom and then their ideal classroom. Children were
later interviewed individually about their two drawings. They were asked to
describe their drawings: which helped to reveal which design features they
noticed in their classroom and what changes they would make.
Using these methods, the study revealed that children had various
concerns about their classrooms. Firstly, windows emerged as key area of
concern for children because some claimed to prefer to sit close to windows and
to be able to see outside. They also preferred to have a variety of windows which
were different in shape. They expressed their views as follows:
[The] window is nice because you can see the nice things outside.
[It’s good] having big windows to see outside when you sit on the carpet.
Figure 1. Photo of the classroom window
10
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
The importance of windows and connection to the outdoors was also presented
in children’s drawings. Figure 2 presents two drawings by a child who wished to
make the existing window bigger. In addition, blinds were another concern for a
few children. They were aware of the colour and patterns of blinds. One child
said ‘blue blinds and the pattern are nice’ because they are ‘like a piece of sky’.
Another child suggested having curtains with pictures in the classroom (see
Figure 2).
Existing Classroom
My Ideal Classroom
Figure 2. A Child’s Drawings of Classroom 3
The second area of concern for child participants was artificial lighting.
Some children preferred yellow to white light. A few children suggested having
lighting of different and changing colours. Figure 3 illustrates two drawings by a
child who wished to make the artificial lights colourful and said: ‘as the lights
change colour, blinds change colour and the carpet changes colour’. Also this
child and a few other children suggested having beds in their classroom to rest
on when they were tired. Perhaps they saw the classroom as a living space
(having the required facilities) and not only a place to study the curriculum.
11
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Existing Classroom
My Ideal Classroom
Figure 3. A Child’s Drawings of Classroom 2
A third area that child participants chose to focus on was school displays.
They showed a strong awareness of the displays around the school, choosing to
photograph and talk about displays to which they had contributed. Children’s own
work (with their names on) seem to hold particular significance for them as, when
talking about displays, they would say, ‘this is my painting’ or point to their
photos. Similar results in Clark’s (2010) study revealed that young children took
photographs of their names and photos in their cloakroom. Figure 4 illustrates
one display in their classroom.
Figure 4. Displays of children’s art work
12
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Having various colours on different surfaces in the classroom such as walls,
floor and ceiling was considered important by some of the children although the
walls and ceilings were mainly white. One child suggested having ‘lots of colours,
red, purple’. Similarly, Clark (2010) revealed young children’s responses covered
a spectrum of colours. Several children suggested having ‘butterflies’ or ‘a
rainbow’ on the walls or on the floor. Figure 5 provides two drawings by a child
who wished to change the colour of the carpet from grey to pink, basing her
suggestion on fond recollections of a previous classroom with a pink carpet.
Existing Classroom
My Ideal Classroom
Figure 5. A Child’s Drawings of Classroom 1
Also a few children thought the colour of the ceiling should be ‘blue or red’, whilst
one child suggested having pictures on the ceiling. Young children’s attention to
the ceiling also featured in Clark’s (2010) study in that a different sense of
perspective was conveyed by children’s attention to the sky and ceilings.
Having a suitable cloakroom was important for a few children in one
classroom. They were not very happy with the amount of space they had for
hanging their clothes, shown in their photo (Figure 6), and would have preferred
a more spacious cloakroom or more hangers. One child said ‘it doesn’t look nice’,
and another child said ‘it is not tidy’. Therefore, it seems, not only the amount of
13
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
space, but also the appearance of the cloakroom was important for these
children.
Figure 6. Coat hangers in the classroom
Storage was another concern for children in one classroom. A few children
pointed out the cupboard space in their classroom saying ‘it is good, […] lots of
room to put things in it’. Finally, having plants or flowers in the classroom
emerged as a concern for only a few children. Although there were no plants in
classrooms, except for a few images and a bunch of daffodils in one of the
classrooms, one child expressed her view about them by saying that ‘it is good to
have a corner with lots of flowers’ (emerged from an interview regarding this
child’s drawing - see Figure 2) and another child said he likes ‘the images of
flowers on the wall’ because they are nice’. Perhaps it shows that they like to be
connected to nature (plants and flowers) even when they are inside their
classrooms.
Overall findings and interpretations from study one showed children noticed
certain architectural features of their classroom. From the children’s voices about
classrooms, it can be concluded that their suggestions for changes mainly
related to ‘colour and decoration’ (variety of colours, butterfly, rainbow and
flowers), ‘physical features’ (windows, lighting/lamps, walls, floor and ceiling),
and ‘facilities’ (blinds, cloakroom and storage).
14
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Children’s involvement in research: Study 2
This study was carried out as part of classroom activities in another infant school
in March 2007, after gaining permission from the headteacher and teaching staff.
The study focused on the whole school (all the indoor and outdoor spaces). The
first aim of this study was to find out the spaces that children liked or disliked in
their school and the reasons for their choices. The participants were 36 pupils in
Year 2 (6-7 years old). The pupils from 2 different classes were divided into 4
groups of 9 to discuss and highlight the places they liked and disliked. The study
started with a brainstorming session, which discussed the concepts of buildings
and places. Teachers and teaching assistants helped in the process by writing a
list of the places the children mentioned. The places most highlighted by the
majority of pupils in each group were visited by the children and researcher.
Photos of these places were taken with the children and their voices were
recorded as they were explaining their concerns. The photos were printed and
discussions with the children continued in the classroom. In some cases, children
in different groups agreed on their preferences.
Figure 7. Research Process with Children in the Classroom
The playground was one of the spaces that all children (in the 4 groups)
liked, mainly because of various activities that took place there; some of them
liked it because of ‘playtime’ and ‘adventure’, while others said it was good for
15
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
‘meeting friends’. It shows the association between playground and the event
(meeting friends) and the importance of social interaction for children.
Figure 8. Playground
All children in all groups were interested in looking at the various creatures
in this quite small garden in their school yard (wildlife garden). Some of the
children liked it because ‘you explore things; […] you see creatures, frogs’ (they
were so excited to see these creatures in the pond). A few children liked it as ‘it is
peaceful’. Therefore, they also appreciated the silent quality of the space.
This hilly area of the school yard (Figure 9) was liked by the majority of
children (3 groups out of 4) because of its connection to nature (grass) as well as
the activities they could engage in while there. Some of them said ‘it is nice in
summer because of the grass’, while others said ‘it is fun using your body, doing
cartwheels’. The views of child participants in this study highlighted the
importance of having access to a landscaped area.
16
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Figure 9. Banking area
With regards to the classrooms, one was preferred by half of the children (2
groups). There were a number of reasons for liking this classroom, such as
colour, appearance and decoration, with some children saying ‘it is colourful’ and
others said ‘it looks nice, […] and was nicely decorated’.
The ICT suite was considered pleasing by the majority of children (3
groups) because of the fun to be had from using the computers. Some children
said they had a ‘good time on computers’ and some said ‘it is fun sharing
equipment’: thus linking this space with an activity within it (sharing equipment).
The hall was chosen as one of the spaces they liked because of the various
activities happening there. Half of the children (2 groups) said it was good
because of ‘assembly and PE’. This also shows the association between the
space and the behaviour which is expected there. In this respect, Canter’s (1977:
158-159) proposition of place has relevance in terms of ‘the behaviour
associated’ with the hall and ‘the descriptions, or conception’, which children hold
of activities occurring in the hall (physical environment).
17
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Figure 10. School hall
The mirror area – a space beside a corridor which was designed by an
artist with mirrors on three walls – was considered pleasing by only one group of
children. They liked it because of the feeling associated with this space. As some
children put it, ‘it makes you happy’. They could see themselves (their different
gestures) in the mirrors, they laughed and had fun (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. Mirror area
In addition, there were places that some children liked and others disliked.
The headteacher’s office was chosen by one group of children as a likable place
because it was where they were rewarded when they did good work. A few
children said ‘there are trophies that our school have won and make us feel
good’. It shows that success of their schools is important for them to feel good.
18
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Conversely, the headteacher’s office was disliked by 2 groups of children
because ‘you get told off’. Despite the contradictory feelings expressed by child
participate to this sphere, the key point to note here is that both opinions reflect
how the children associated this space with the behaviour of the headteacher.
Furthermore, there were areas for which the children expressed a strong
dislike. The dining room, for example, was disliked by two groups of children for a
variety of reasons, including noise, dirtiness and untidiness. They criticised it as
being ‘too noisy, […] get shouted at’ and ‘it’s a mess, […] have to tidy up’.
Previous findings also highlighted dinner halls as a concern frequently raised by
older pupils (Sorrell and Sorrell, 2005).
Figure 12. Dining room
The lack of space and natural light emerged as the main reasons for
choosing corridors as one of the disliked spaces. Two groups of children
described corridors as ‘long, not wide enough and dark’ where ‘you are bumping
into people’. The children thereby noticed the potentially negative impact of lack
of space and density in corridors.
Among the outdoor spaces the naughty yard was disliked by two groups of
children because of its small size as well as the prohibition of any activities there.
Their knowledge of rules and behaviour influenced their description of the space.
19
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
This was revealed in comments such as: ‘you sit and don’t play… not allowed to
run’. Only a few children said ‘it is small’.
The glass bridge was disliked by two groups of children because of poor
acoustics and lack of colour. Some children stated that it was ‘a bit dull, it has no
colour’ and most children said ‘when you shout, you get earache’.
Figure 13. Link (glass bridge)
Also, one of the classrooms was criticised by the majority of children (three
groups) for being cold and lacking colour, with the children saying, it has ‘no
colours’…, and ‘it is cold’.
Finally, cleanliness and ventilation in toilets were shown to be important as
three groups of the children disliked their toilets because ‘they smell… and are
dirty’. This is an area that has been widely discussed in previous studies (Burke
and Grosvenor, 2003; Sorrell and Sorrell, 2005; Clark 2010).
As part of the final component of this study, children were asked to consider
the places they would like to change. They could write down their responses and
highlight their problematic areas and proposed forms of change. This part of the
study could be conducted with only 20 pupils (in one class) and they were asked
20
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
to write their views under these titles: ‘what I want to change about my school’ (in
one column) and ‘how I could change it’ (in another column). Their opinions,
preferences and desired changes (all) are presented. Some children suggested
changes which were related to colour and decoration and are presented as
follows:
I would paint it a different colour, I would make it pretty. Paint it like the
rainbow. I would paint some flowers.
I would change the colour. I would paint it sunshine yellow.
I would put some drawings on the walls to make it nicer.
I would change the paint in class 7.
I would change the dining room; it would be nice to have more paint.
I want the doors to be steel doors in red. I want to change class 7’s roof
to blue by painting it.
I want the walls to be painted yellow.
I want to change outside by painting on the floor.
I want to change Mrs. L[…]’s office [headteacher] to a nice place. I want
to put a big bright rainbow. I could put pictures up on the class windows
that could be a change.
I want to change outside Mrs. L[…]’s office, the link, the hall, the dining
room, the library… by putting flower borders on the top of the wall…. by
putting bright colours in the entrance.
21
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Children did not write why they wanted such changes, but colour has been one of
the factors highlighted by children in previous studies with various age groups of
children (Burke and Grosvenor, 2003; Sorrell and Sorrell, 2005). Clark (2010)
also found out that children’s record of physical characteristics of their school
included references to colour and beauty.
Some children suggested changes which were related to various facilities
and spaces (indoors and outdoors) and are presented as follows:
When we come in, I want to change the path (two comments).
I would change the gate outside, we could change them.
I want to change classroom 8 [which has no colours and it is cold] (two
comments).
I want to change the hall.
I want to change the cloakroom. Make it bigger.
I want more flowers in school; more frogs in the pond. We could plant
seeds; could put more tadpoles in the ponds.
To make the school bigger; to make the playground bigger. I would
change the link.
Finally, some suggested changes were to do with the feeling of the spaces
and related to the overall impression of the school on children in terms of
friendliness. Their desire for a happy, kind and welcoming school is reflected by
the comments below:
22
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
I want to change the school to a happy school.
I want to change it to a kind school.
I would change our school to a kind school.
I want to make our school welcoming.
These suggestions were gathered (as written format), but it was not possible to
discuss them with children to explore further what constitutes a kind or happy
school and what is the definition of a welcoming school. It can be argued that
these factors are not solely about the physical environment of the school and
people (staff and other children) might have a significant role in establishing this
feeling. As Gordon et al (2000) describe, feelings of happiness may be
connected to an informal layer of a school which relates to the social and
personal connections. Regarding the feeling of the spaces, Dudek (2007) stated
the importance of providing attractive modern environments; however, having a
happy, kind and welcoming school is an emergent theme on which there is a lack
of research.
To sum up, the findings show that children are clearly capable of
suggesting changes for improvement of their school, based on their own
experiences. They were using all their senses to understand the use of space, as
well as the impact of space upon themselves. They were, indeed, making links
between spaces and events. They picked out spaces not only because of the
physical space itself, but also the events occurring within them.
Conclusions
The conclusions of this study can be summarised in terms of ‘reflections on the
methods’ and their effectiveness and ‘the findings themselves’. Regarding the
23
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
methods for gathering children’s views, these studies showed that the most
appropriate are those which do not rely on the written word, such as photo
elicitation and drawings, whilst interviews could also work well. Visual methods
proved especially effective for this age group (5-7 years old), although children of
6-7 years also showed their capability to write their views briefly. However, in
response to the question: ‘how could pupils be involved in this research?’ it was
revealed that data collection related to children’s concerns about their schools is
a lengthy process. It was not only difficult for the researcher to collect data from a
large number of pupils using these methods, but also, school schedules created
serious time constraints. Although it can be argued that a large sample size is not
the main aim when gathering qualitative data, if complementary quantitative data
is to be gathered, alternative, more efficient methods will be required.
When considering the findings of these two studies, it is not possible to
make generalisations due to the limited number of children who participated.
However, what has been reinforced is the extent to which children in infant
schools are acute observers and explorers of their school environments. The two
studies reveal children’s ability to highlight the problems, appreciate the positive
design considerations and even make suggestions for change (improvement) in
their schools.
Children’s opinions could suggest initial categories for making changes in
their schools. For their classroom, it can be concluded that their suggestions
mainly related to ‘colour and decoration’, ‘physical features’, ‘comfort’ and
‘facilities’. Also, when considering the whole school, these design themes could
be reinforced by material gathered by children, including ‘colour and decoration’,
‘facilities and spaces’ and ‘the feeling of the spaces’. These are themes emerging
from the findings of this study on which there is lack of research, especially in
infant schools. In addition, children have indicated through their photographs,
conversations, writings and drawings how their school environment contains
24
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
connections with people, events and activities. These connections were also
found by Clark (2010) in her study with younger children.
This leads on to another question raised by the research: ‘is there any
consistency among the voices of children about their school environments that
could inform the school design process?’ The findings suggest that some
consistency in children’s views was apparent; however, research with a larger
number of children is needed to explore this question further in order to make a
framework (based on children’s’ views) for school design. Such research could
bridge the gap between designers’ assumptions and children’s views about what
is important in a school and thereby play a significant role in improving school
design and increasing child satisfaction.
25
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
References
Birkett, D. (2001a) ‘The School We’d Like.’ The Education Guardian. Guardian
Unlimited. Available from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianeducation/story/0,3605,501372,00.html,
accessed on 20/10/07.
Birkett, D. (2001b) ‘Future perfect.’ The Education Guardian. Guardian Unlimited.
Available from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,501387,00.html, accessed
on 20/10/07.
Burke, C. and Grosvenor, I. (2003) The School I'd Like - Children and Young
People's Reflections on an Education for the 21st Century. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Chawla, L., ed. (2001) Growing Up in an Urbanizing World. London: Earthscan/
UNESCO.
Christensen, P. and James A. eds. (2008) Research with Children: Perspectives
and Practices. London: Routledge.
Clark, A. (2007) ‘Early childhood spaces: Involving young children and
practitioners in the design process’. Working paper 45. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Clark, A. (2004) ‘The Mosaic Approach and Research with Young Children’ In V.
Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Fraser and S. Ding (Eds) The Reality of
Research with Children and Young People. London: Sage.
26
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Clark, A. (2010) Transforming Children's Spaces: Children’s and Adults’
Participation in Designing Learning Environment. Oxon: Routledge.
Clark, A., McQuail, S. and Moss, P. (2003) Exploring the Field of Listening to and
Consulting with Young Children. London: DfES.
Clark, A., and Moss, P. (2001) Listening to young children: The mosaic
approach. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Coates, E. (2004) ‘I Forgot the Sky! Children’s stories contained within their
drawings’. In The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, ed.
Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, Fraser, and S. Ding, London: Open University /
Sage Publications.
Cox, S. & Robinson-Pant, A. (2003) ‘Empowering Children through Visual
Communication.’ A research project funded by CFBT. School of Education and
Professional Development. University of East Anglia. Available at:
www.uea.ac.uk, Accessed on 10/09/05
Curtis, P. (2010). School building programme scrapped in latest round of cuts
The Education Guardian. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 14/07/10 from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/05/school-building-programmebudget-cuts.
DfES (2002) Schools for the Future - Designs for Learning Communities, Building
Bulletin 95. London: The Stationery Office.
Dudek, M. (2000) Architecture of Schools: The New Learning Environments.
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Fielding, N. and Conroy, S. (1992) ‘Interviewing child victims: Police and social
work investigations of child sexual abuse’. Sociology. 26 (1): 103-124.
27
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Ghaziani, R. (2009) Children’s Voices: A Framework for School Design. PhD
Thesis. School of Architecture. University of Sheffield.
Gordon, T., Holland, J. and Lahelma, E. (2000) Making Spaces: citizenship and
differences in schools. London: Macmillan Press.
Greig, A. and Taylor J. (1999) Doing Research with Children. London. Sage.
Hart, R. (1997) Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving
Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. London:
Earthscan/UNICEF.
Hek, G., Judd, M. and Moule, P. (1996) Making Sense of Research: An
Introduction for Nurses. London: Cassell.
Higgins, S., E. Hall, C. McCaughey, K. Wall, and P. Woolner (2005) The Impact
of School Environments: A literature review. London: Design Council.
Lansdown, G. (1994) ‘Children's rights’. In B. Mayall (ed.), Children's childhood:
Observed and experienced. London: The Falmer Press.
Lawson, B. (1997). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified.
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. (eds.) (1999) Researching Children’s Perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University.
Mandell, N. (1991) ‘The Least Adult Role in Studying Children’ In F. W aksler
(Ed.) Studying the Social Worlds of Children: Sociological Readings. London :
Falmer Press.
28
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
Mayall, B. (1994) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced. London:
Falmer Press.
Parnell, R., V. Cave, and J. Torrington (2008). ‘School Design: Opportunities
through Collaboration’. CoDesign 4(4): 211-224.
Prosser, J. (ed.) (1998) Image-Based Research: a sourcebook for qualitative
researchers. London: Falmer Press.
Prosser, J. (1992) ‘Personal reflections on the use of photography in an
ethnographic case study.’ British Educational Research Journal 18(4): 397-411
Sanoff, H. (1992) School Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Sanoff, H., AIA, Pasalar, C. and Hashas, M. (2001) School Building Assessment
Methods. School of Architecture, College of Design, North Carolina State
University, with support from the National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities. Available at: http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/sanoffassess.pdf,
Accessed on 26/02/08.
Scott, J. (2008). In P. Christensen, and James, A. (Eds.) Research with Children:
Perspectives and Practices. New York: Routledge.
Sorrell, J. and Sorrell, F. (2005) Joinedupdesignforschools, London: Merrell
Publishers.
Spencer, J. and Flin, R. (1990) The Evidence of Children. The Law and the
Psychology. London: Blackstone Press.
TACIR (2003) Do K-12 School Facilities Affect Education Outcomes? Staff
Information Report. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations. Retrieved from
29
Childhoods Today, Volume 4 (1), 2010
http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/PDF_FILES/Education/SchFac.pdf, accessed on
22/10/09.
The Sorrell Foundation (2006) The Young Design Programme 0506. Available at:
http://www.thesorrellfoundation.com/pdf/ydp_magazine_05_06.pdf, accessed on
23/10/09.
The Sorrell Foundation (2007) The Young Design Programme 0607. Available at:
http://www.thesorrellfoundation.com/pdf/ydp_magazine_06_07.pdf, accessed on
23/10/09.
Titman, W. (1994). Special places, special people: The hidden curriculum of
the school grounds. Godalming, Surrey, UK: World Wide Fund for
Nature/Learning through Landscapes.
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K., Higgins, S. & McCaughey, J. (2005) School
Building Programmes: Motivations, Consequences and Implications. Reading:
CfBT.
30