THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CLASSROOM: CHANGES AND

CHALLENGES.

Túlio Tibúrcio,
The University of Reading, Reading, UK

ABSTRACT
The architecture of the classroom is facing changes due to technology. In this
information and technology age many questions have been asked regarding the future of
schools and the impact of technology in education. Changes are needed in the classroom
environment due to advances in technology and it will demand more investment,
maintenance and management.

This research examines hi-tech (technology-based) classrooms environment through

observation techniques and questionnaires. Results have shown that the use of new
technology-based environments has positive effect on the learning process. Pupils
seemed stimulated by the new technology and also by the appeal of the classroom space.
Interactions proved to be increased. Developments in classroom design needs to consider
technology as a key element. Flexibility is another important guideline in classroom
design and workspace design.

Keywords: school architecture, learning environment, classroom, interactions

INTRODUCTION
This research focuses upon new hi-tech classrooms and it aims to investigate the impacts
of these new environments on pupils, whether pupils’ behaviour is affected by the change
of environment.

Technology is changing rapidly and it is permeating all workspaces. In a changing world

characterised by the information and technology age many questions have been asked
regarding the changes in schools and their architecture. What are the schools of the future
going to be like? What will be the impact of technology in early education? What changes
are needed in the learning environment? What implications do they have in the
architecture of schools and in the design process?

Evidences show the architecture of the classroom is already facing these technological
changes. The classroom space becomes more complex and needs to be understood, well
planned and designed in order to meet the demands of teachers, pupils and the community
at large. Designing a classroom becomes a bigger challenge for designers. It has
implications in the design process, especially in the briefing stage. The design team needs
to be aware of the technological advances and to acquire knowledge on the field. Pupils
are no longer end-users, but are seen as the client. Sorrell (2005) sustains that pupils are
the consumers of education. It is necessary to understand this new context we live in, to
understand the new technology and to understand the new learning environment it is
creating. It is not a matter of inserting computer equipment in the classroom. The current
challenge is to investigate how this new information technology can be used for the

231
enhancement of teaching and learning. As stated by Bordwell, “the challenge for
educators, planners and architects to integrate instructional technologies is to recognize
the magnitude of changes likely to occur over the next 25 years and to build schools that
will meet these challenges.” (Crosbie, 2001).

A clear understanding about the classroom environment is fundamental to understand

these changes. A good definition of learning environment is given by Wilson (1995)
saying that “a learning environment is a place where learners may work together and
support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their
pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities.” This seems to be exactly what
a classroom is facing now. A variety of new tools and information resources has been
added to the environment since technology has been used to enhance access to
information. In these terms a high-tech (technology-based) classroom used in this study is
defined as an intelligent classroom, which characteristically make extensive use of
information technology and flexible environment (Tiburcio & Finch, 2005). This latter
definition suggests flexibility as another key element in classroom design.

Other questions might be raised regarding these changes in the classroom design. Are
these changes really necessary? How do these changes affect the new architecture of
schools and classrooms? What are the impacts on the pupils? Annesley (2002) argues that
“the design of a school affects the way pupils and staff interact, and their motivation and
self-esteem”. She continues by saying that “these factors in turn have an effect on
learning”. Riggs et al. (2003) go further stating that “students’ academic achievement is
higher in newer and more attractive school buildings than in less attractive facilities”.
The environment does influence education. Designing a school today requires
incorporating new technology and creating spaces that are imaginative and stimulating to
help children to achieve more. The main question of this study is concerned with the
impact of high-tech classrooms on pupils’ interactions. It is based on assumptions that
relate learning to interaction.

Many Vygotsky “believers” argue children learn through interaction. According to

(Doolittle, 1997) “we learn through interaction with others and in doing so we create
something qualitatively different from what we started with”. Similar thoughts are
presented by Littleton and Light (1999) when stating that “Vygotsky (1978) saw these
processes as highly susceptible of social influence and he focused mainly upon
interactions between partners who differed markedly in their levels of ability”. In another
book (Light and Littleton, 1999) the same authors highlight that “child’s interactions with
other people serve to mediate between the child and the world-to-be-learned-about and
so understanding learning depends upon understanding the particular types of
interactions which serve to foster it”. To summarize it can be said that learning happens
when interactions occur, which is an assumption for this research.

It is not intended, in this study, to measure the performance of the students in these new
high-tech learning environments. From an architecture background and interest it is
understood that learning is a very complex issue to be investigated and measured. The
first interest of this research is to analyse the architectural space and its features. This
study investigates if interactions are increasing in high-tech classroom environments and

232
if there are connections with these technological changes. If interactions increase, it might
indicate that learning will be improved, in other words, more interaction more learning.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Interaction is the behaviour aspect being investigated in this study. Three other factors
that seem to influence it are also investigated: mobility of the teacher, flexibility of the
room and the technology itself. With focus on pupils these interactions were classified in
5 categories (pupil-to-pupil, pupil-to-teacher, pupil-to-equipment, group interaction and
no interaction) in order to be investigated and quantified. Observations indicated that
relationships exist among these factors being investigated (Tiburcio & Finch, 2005). They
are described below and grouped in a framework diagram (Figure1).

Technology and Mobility The new classroom has more equipment (laptops, web tablets,
printers, interactive whiteboard, video-conference equipment, etc.) available for pupils to
use and evidence suggested that it was being used. The teacher was significantly more
mobile in the new environment.
Technology and Flexibility A relationship was observed between flexibility of the room
and technology found with wireless technology together with movable furniture creating
more flexibility in the observed new classrooms.
Technology and Interactions The technology available in the high-tech classroom allows
more teacher-pupils and pupil-pupil interactions.
Flexibility and Mobility By comparing teacher’s movement in the traditional and new
classroom it was possible to identify greater support for mobility in the new classroom.
Flexibility and Interactions The flexibility allowed by the new classroom has encouraged
meaningful interactions.
Mobility and Interactions It was found that the more mobility the teacher had, the more
interaction occurred amongst pupils.

Figure 1 summarizes these relationships and shows that the technology in the classroom,
the flexibility of the room and the mobility of the teacher have influence on the
interactions that occur among pupils. It also shows that technology also influences the
flexibility of the room and the teacher’s mobility. In the same way, the flexibility of the
room has a relationship with the mobility of the teacher. The diagram represents the
conceptual framework for this research and it was the base for data gathering. These
relationships suggest that more interaction is stimulated by the new technology-based
classroom.

TECHNOLOGY FLEXIBILITY MOBILITY

INTERACTIONS
Pupil-to-pupil, Pupil-to-teacher, Pupil-to-equipment, Group interaction, No interaction

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework, adapted from Tiburcio and Finch (2005)

233
METHODOLOGY
Methods from environmental psychology underpin this research since they offer tools to
analyse the space. This research is based on case studies constituted of two new
classrooms and two traditional classrooms in different schools. Behavioural mapping
(through class observation) and questionnaires (to validate some data) were the methods
used in this study. This multi-method approach is suggested by Zeisel (1984) since each
method has it own bias.

Behavioural mapping, which uses a plan to annotate observations (Tiburcio & Finch,
2005), was chosen and several graphic maps were produced during each observation
session. Every 5 minutes a map of the physical space was produced and information was
registered. This technique has been used for environmental psychologists such as Ittleson
et al (1974), Zeisel (1984) and Horne (2002). The latter used behavioural mapping to
examine the classroom focusing on the teacher. This study has the focus on pupils. Figure
2 shows a plan of the classroom extracted from one of the observation sheets with
information recorded. The observations were mapped on floor plans of the classroom,
annotating layout, teacher’s movement, interactions among users (pupils and teacher) and
with the environment, record of activities and their duration.

The use of questionnaire at the end of the observation process allowed the validation of
the data (Horne, 2002) collected from observations. The focus of the questionnaires was
the view of the users on their experiences in the new environment. All pupils in the
classes were given a questionnaire. It was agreed with teachers that questionnaire would
be a class activity, which produced a large number of responses.

Teacher boys
tracking
girls

observer

PT = Pupils on task

Figure 2 Five-minute behavioural mapping

234
EXPERIMENT
The research used case studies for data collecting. Two schools in Telford-UK, designed
by INTEGER - Intelligent and Green (INTEGER, 2004) were chosen due to their new
built high-tech classrooms. One primary school (Wrockwardine School) and one
secondary school (Lord Silkin) were granted with a new “classroom of the future”, part of
a Government initiative (DfES, 2003). Four classrooms were used for observation and
comparison, two traditional classrooms (WTC and LSTC) and two classrooms of the
future (WCF and LSCF). The same group of pupils (class), the same teacher and the same
subject being taught in both traditional and new environment, were chosen in each school.
It allowed, through comparison, to investigate whether interactions have increased in the
new environment. Figure 3 represents the framework for the experiment explaining how
the comparison was made. It guided data gathering and analysis.

COMPARISON
PRIMARY SCHOOL

• SAME PUPILS

WTC •
•
SAME TEACHER
SAME SUBJECT
WCF
ENV
• DIFFERENT

ENV
ENVIRONMENT

NO COMPARISON NO COMPARISON

• DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT • SAME ENVIRONMENT

• DIFFERENT PUPIL • DIFFERENT PUPIL
• DIFFERENT TEACHER • DIFFERENT TEACHER
• DIFFERENT SUBJECT • DIFFERENT SUBJECT
SECONDARY SCHOOL

• SAME PUPIL
• SAME TEACHER

LSTC •
•
SAME SUBJECT
DIFFERENT
LSCF
ENV ENV
ENVIRONMENT

COMPARISON

Figure 3 Framework for empirical studies

The traditional classroom environment in the primary school (WTC) is just like in many
other schools. To attend 7-9 years old pupils the tables are arranged together for group
activities, walls are used as information and work displays, and it also has got a
blackboard, an interactive white board and some computers. The last ones were rarely
used during the observation period. In the secondary school (LSTC), the traditional
classroom has a horse-shoe shape layout that encourages the teacher to be on the front of
the room and students sitting around the tables. Both classroom of the future (WCF and
LSCF) have the same design, apart from the furniture in the conservatory space and the
outside cladding. The classroom itself has top technology such as laptops, web-tablets,
video-conferencing system, printers, interactive board, audio-video equipments and
movable wheeled desks and chairs. It has got automation features for the building, green
roof, light pipes, light sensors, since it was conceived as intelligent and green building
(Dawson, 2004).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The flexibility of the classroom is higher in the new classroom. In both schools (W and
LS) the classroom of the future have higher flexibility factor (Figure 4). In average the
difference between old and new is 12% and it is considerably significant. The attitude of

235
the teacher is changed in the new classroom. The layout, for instance, was always
changed, while in the traditional classroom it was kept the same most of the time. This
flexibility seems to have fostered the teacher to be more mobile in the classroom. Figure
5 confirms that teachers have more mobility in the new classroom. In both schools the
mobility factor of the teacher has doubled. By being more mobile teachers tended to
interact more with pupils.

The number of interactions has increased in most of the five categories identified as
pupils’ interactions. This can be illustrated by Figures 6 and 7, for the primary and
secondary school classrooms respectively. In pupil-equipment category it was expected
that this number would be much higher since there are more equipment available in the
classroom of the future. Pupil-teacher interactions show significant increase in the new
classroom, confirming that higher mobility of the teacher would increase interactions
with pupils. The pupil-pupil category also shows increase in the number of interactions in
both new classrooms. Group interaction presents a lower value in the new classroom.
When looking at the “no interaction” category it is clear that the overall number of
interactions has really increased since there are much less no interaction in the new
classroom.

CLASSROOM FLEXIBILITY
TEACHER'S MOBILITY

LSTC 96.07%
Classroom

LSCF 30.76%
Classroom

LSTC 82.13%
1 LSTC 14.34%

WCF 94.32%
WCF 36.71%
83.70%
WTC WTC 16.17%

75.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% 95.00% 100.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00%

Flexibility Mobility

Figure 4 Comparison of flexibility of the classroom Figure 5 Comparison of the mobility of the teachers
INTERACTION PRIMARY SCHOOL INTERACTIONS SECONDARY SCHOOL

1000 1200
882 1052
900
1000
800
700 800
638
600
WTC LSTC
500 419 600
378
400 WCF LSCF
300 400
224 242
166 172
200 131 111 200 80 83 79
100 32 52 50 37
16 0
0 0
pupil-pupil pupil- pupil- group no pupil-pupil pupil- pupil- group no
teacher equipment interaction int eraction t eacher equipment interaction interaction
C at eg o r y C at eg o ry

Figure 6 Interactions in the primary classrooms Figure 7 Interactions in the secondary classrooms

According to the questionnaires these findings discussed above were also perceived as
positive by students and teachers. A total of 51 questionnaires were given out to students
of both schools and a 98% response rate was achieved. This was guaranteed by using part
of the lesson for the students to answer the questionnaires. 13 teachers were also asked to
answer the questionnaire (85% responses). When asked about the technology in the
classroom and the interactions that occur in it most of the answers were in the upper
grades of the scale (agree and strongly agree).

236
Question 20 asked if the pieces of equipment are helping them to learn more and 28% of
pupils agreed and 36% answered strongly agree. This means a total of 64% signalling
positively for the use of technology in the classroom. Teachers confirmed these findings
with a total of 82% who agree with that and 9% strongly agree. This indicates that
learning might improve with the help of technology.

Regarding interactions, question 29 - the classroom of the future allows you to interact
more with your peers – had 32% saying strongly agree and 24% agree, summing 56%
positive against 16% who disagree or strongly disagree. The other 28% are neutral in the
scale (neither agree nor disagree). Teacher had 73% positively agreeing that the new
classroom fosters more interaction. 51% of respondents agree or strongly agree with the
affirmation on question 38 – I learn more when I interact more. 5% were contrary and
44% neutral. By looking on teachers responses, 91% agree with this statement and 9%
strongly agree. None of them were contrary to this idea.

Others responses also indicate that interactions have increased in the new classroom of
the future. However they are not discussed in this paper. The relationships that occur in a
high-tech learning environment presented in the diagram on Figure 1 are supported by
positive answers.

CONCLUSION
Changes become clear in the classroom environment. Technology and flexibility are two
main elements that designers must deal with when designing a classroom. The flexibility
existent in these new classrooms facilitates interactions to occur and it seems to help
group and independent learning. Regarding technology it is important to understand the
spaces for learning and what are the impacts on pupils and consequently in education. It
is not only a matter of building ICT suites in schools. The present challenge is to know
how technology will help to improve learning acquisition.

The new approach points to bring technological tools into the classroom. In other words,
instead of taking pupils to have lessons in a computer lab to learn about computers,
teachers would have these tools in their classroom to facilitate access to information. The
teacher becomes a facilitator in the learning process. More interactions will occur, as
found in this research and consequently higher achievements might be reached.

These changes and challenges have new implications for those involved in the design of a
classroom such as architects, designers and engineers. From the architecture point of view
it suggests a new way of thinking, understanding and designing a classroom environment.
In the field of architectural management, the briefing process, for instance, will require
involvement of pupils playing a role of the main client. The classroom is designed for
them. They are the target for learning and the space has to meet the new demands.
Involving pupils in this stage will help to design innovative learning environments that
can adapt to educational and technological changes.
The impact of technology in school buildings, as studied in this research, can be
transferred to other typologies of building. Impacts on the architectural management field
seem to initiate in the briefing process as suggested for school buildings. In this
information age, technology is reshaping most of institutions and fostering buildings to

237
change. Consequently, the whole process of building changes and the management will
be affected.

REFERENCES
Annesley, B et al. (2002). Learning Buildings. School Works, London.
Crosbie, M.J. (2001). Class Architecture. Images Publishing, Australia
Dawson, S. (2004). Telford and Wrekin: Two flexible prefabricated prototype classrooms
by Integer Consultants for school and community use. The Architects’ Journal
(20/05/04), 36-41.
DfES (2003) Classrooms of the future: innovative designs for schools. The Stationary
Office, London.
Doolittle, P. (1997). Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development as a Theoretical Foundation for
Cooperative Learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8(1), 83-103.
Horne, S M (2002). The classroom environment and its effect on the practice of teachers.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. Volume 22, pp139-156.
INTEGER (2004). Classroom of the Future, Telford & Wrekin URL: http://www.
integerproject.co.uk/cotf.html) [27.10.2004]
Ittleson,W., Proshansky, H., Rivlin, L, Winkel, G., Dempsey, D. (1974). An Introduction
to Environmental Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Littleton K, Light P eds. (1999). Learning with computers: analysing productive
interactions. Routledge, London.
Light P. Littleton K, (1999). Social processes in Children’s Learning. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK.
Riggs, P.R., Petreson, G.J., Stockburger, D., (2002). Building Schools that are
Responsive to Student Learning. Journal of Educational Leaders. Volume 1, Number 2,
Spring 2002, pp 21-43 available online URL:
http//www.uiowa.edu/~jerl/Riggs_0109.htm [22/10/2003]
Sorrell ,J., Sorrel, F. (2005). Joined Up Design for Schools. Merrel Pulishers Limited.
London.
Tiburcio, T. and Finch, E F. (2005). The impact of an intelligent classroom on pupils’
interactive behaviour. Facilities: Specialised Facilities. Volume 23, number 5/6, 262-278
Wilson, B.G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning
environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 25-30
Zeisel, J (1984). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-Behaviour Research.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Acknowledgement: Research sponsored by CAPES, Brasilia, Brazil.

238