Visit Wiley.com to save 20% on Place Advantage by Sally Augustin, PhD, editor of Research Design Connections. Your discount will be applied automatically upon checkout. If you do you not see the discount being applied, please enter code aff20 in the Promotion Code field and click the Apply Discount button.
When elementary school teachers were asked to assess the teaching and learning activities promoted by five different classroom shapes (shallow rectangle, deep rectangle, T-shaped, fat-L-shaped and cross-shaped), they believed the classrooms fell into two distinct usage sets, with the T-shaped, fat-L-shaped and cross-shaped classroom designs being more suitable for innovative teaching than the rectangle shapes, but that the rectangles “facilitate control and focus in teaching and learning activities.”
One segment of the teachers participating in this study, who indicated that they “emphasize in the conduct of teaching and learning activities: exploration, examination, inquiry, hands-on involvement, independence and spontaneity, small group and/or individualized curriculum, and class development emerging out of activities” believed that the cross-shaped classroom would best meet their teaching needs, while the rectangular classrooms would least support their teaching techniques. They believed that a cross-shaped classroom is “adjustable to a variety of student orientations, promotes the conduct of diverse activity, and permits multiple spaces-uses with flow potentials between them.”
A second group of teachers, who are fairly similar to the first group in also favoring “exploring, examining, and inquiring activities in the classroom, together with a hands-on approach to student learning,” preferred the fat-L shape (with a second choice of a T-shaped classroom) because it is “adaptable to a variety of student-activity orientations—one that permitted multiple space uses with flow potentials between them, and one that was nonstandard in shape.” These teachers also believed that the rectangular-shaped classrooms would most poorly meet their needs.
Teachers favoring “independence and spontaneity in student expression, the use of exploration, examination, and inquiry in instruction, and a hands-on approach to student learning” also favored the fat-L or T-shaped most (and least preferred the rectangular classroom shapes) because they are “adaptable for multiple and diverse student-activity, support alternate spatial arrangements of student working facilities, and allow for separation of activities with privacy.” The teachers who believed that the rectangular layouts best facilitated their teaching activities generally seemed more concerned than other teachers with a layout that facilitates supervision and observation of students.
This article provides information that can be used to align classroom shapes in school buildings, community centers, and other places with the teaching styles and needs of the individuals who will actually teach in those spaces.
Amedeo, Douglas, and James Dyck. 2003. Activity-enhancing arenas of designs: A case study of the classroom layout. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 20, pp. 323–43.