ArticlePDF Available

Towards a Responsive Understanding of Sustainable School Architecture

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Current international strategies admit the vital importance of education as the development engine for our knowledge-based society, where sustainability is the all-encompassing vision. In this context, a school building project should not begin with a design solution. This study aims to investigate the ways in which architects can better understand sustainable strategies and also how can they translate the real users’ needs into architectural design solutions. Sustainability may be implemented both inside the school’s curricula – knowledge, skills, critical thinking, attitudes, way of life – as well as into the design approach, construction, operations and maintenance of the school building. Not only the school building in itself should be a tridimensional textbook which offers sustainability lessons, subtly, attractively and interactively, but architects can become teachers of sustainability. Education for Sustainable Development has become a long-term strategic objective across the world. The strategy adopted by The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in 2005 aims for integrating sustainability as a central nucleus within the educational curricula by 2040. This research applies a double filter in analysing the architecture of educational facilities: “What qualifies as sustainable?” and “What could educate?”. In other words, the study answers an original filter of analysis, “What is it in the sustainable architecture of a school that has the power to educate its users?” and defines major interconnected elements of a sustainable school building: Site, Transportation / Mobility, Safety & Security, Energy, Lighting, Indoor Air Quality, Acoustics, Water Management, Waste Management, Materials & Resources, Structural Systems, Modularity & Prefabrication, Accessibility / Universal Design, Image / Awareness / Local Footprint, Interior Design & Furniture, Orientation & Signage, Health, Nutrition & Physical Activity, Operations & Maintenance, Building services, BMS, Smart / Intelligent Buildings, Information and Communications Technology, Costs & Financing, New or Rehabilitated, Innovation. An 8-boxes matrix type SWOT Analysis have been applied for each specific component, investigating the situation of existing Romanian schools. The SWOT Analysis details the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats and put forward sustainable and educational strategies. Following this study, architects may benefit from new open paths, landmarks and a research toolkit for generating original design solutions. New designed schools should be able to offer a wide range of dynamic methods of teaching architecture, engineering and environmental sciences. Therefore, Education for Sustainable Development is shaped through sustainable school architecture. If we offer users the opportunity to learn and work in educational spaces which are able to capitalize on the creative potential, in schools strategically placed within the environment and deeply rooted in their context, then children, adolescents and adults can all be proud of schools where they feel valorised, they all will be able to evolve, innovate and develop sustainable behaviours. Applying the filter of sustainability to educational purposes, architects can develop a responsive process of integrated design, based on evidence and looking towards the future.
Content may be subject to copyright.
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Towards a Responsive Understanding of Sustainable School
Architecture
To cite this article: Oana Mihescu 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 960 032106
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 89.185.77.72 on 23/12/2020 at 19:53
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
1
Towards a Responsive Understanding of Sustainable School
Architecture
Oana Mihăescu1
1"Ion Mincu" University of Architecture and Urban Planning, Bucharest, Romania
mihaescu.t.oana@gmail.com
Abstract. Current international strategies admit the vital importance of education as the
development engine for our knowledge-based society, where sustainability is the all-
encompassing vision. In this context, a school building project should not begin with a design
solution. This study aims to investigate the ways in which architects can better understand
sustainable strategies and also how can they translate the real users’ needs into architectural
design solutions. Sustainability may be implemented both inside the school’s curricula –
knowledge, skills, critical thinking, attitudes, way of life as well as into the design approach,
construction, operations and maintenance of the school building. Not only the school building
in itself should be a tridimensional textbook which offers sustainability lessons, subtly,
attractively and interactively, but architects can become teachers of sustainability. Education
for Sustainable Development has become a long-term strategic objective across the world. The
strategy adopted by The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in 2005 aims for
integrating sustainability as a central nucleus within the educational curricula by 2040. This
research applies a double filter in analysing the architecture of educational facilities: “What
qualifies as sustainable?” and “What could educate?”. In other words, the study answers an
original filter of analysis, “What is it in the sustainable architecture of a school that has the
power to educate its users?” and defines major interconnected elements of a sustainable school
building: Site, Transportation / Mobility, Safety & Security, Energy, Lighting, Indoor Air
Quality, Acoustics, Water Management, Waste Management, Materials & Resources,
Structural Systems, Modularity & Prefabrication, Accessibility / Universal Design, Image /
Awareness / Local Footprint, Interior Design & Furniture, Orientation & Signage, Health,
Nutrition & Physical Activity, Operations & Maintenance, Building services, BMS, Smart /
Intelligent Buildings, Information and Communications Technology, Costs & Financing, New
or Rehabilitated, Innovation. An 8-boxes matrix type SWOT Analysis have been applied for
each specific component, investigating the situation of existing Romanian schools. The SWOT
Analysis details the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats and put forward
sustainable and educational strategies. Following this study, architects may benefit from new
open paths, landmarks and a research toolkit for generating original design solutions. New
designed schools should be able to offer a wide range of dynamic methods of teaching
architecture, engineering and environmental sciences. Therefore, Education for Sustainable
Development is shaped through sustainable school architecture. If we offer users the
opportunity to learn and work in educational spaces which are able to capitalize on the creative
potential, in schools strategically placed within the environment and deeply rooted in their
context, then children, adolescents and adults can all be proud of schools where they feel
valorised, they all will be able to evolve, innovate and develop sustainable behaviours.
Applying the filter of sustainability to educational purposes, architects can develop a
responsive process of integrated design, based on evidence and looking towards the future.
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
2
1. Introduction
Schools are true landmarks of their communities. Nowadays, we witness a major prioritization of
education embodied in programs of rehabilitating existing schools and building new ones, towards
sustainability.
Ideally, any space contains learning opportunities. The key to the problem is to find out what, why,
where, when and in what ways can a designed space help a learner develop. By combining academic
research with personal experience, visits to newly built sustainable educational facilities and
observations drawn from conversations with others, architects can reach a different level of
understanding of how design can affect expected outcomes.
In the same way that knowing specific legislative requirements for educational constructions is
essential for architects, so is the acquisition of knowledge about the educational process. Building a
receptive design culture is not just about being up to date with the latest research in the field of
education, but more than that, understanding how this information can be applied to a specific project
and how it can be integrated into a certain educational facility.
In 1972, William Richmond bet his readership that the level of originality of any new published
work on education is of maximum 5% [1]. Therefore, one of the objectives of this paper when
reviewing the specialised literature was to track the originality “islands” in the studied works.
The present research paper puts forward a new structure, in keeping with the stated objectives,
concerned with encouraging learning experiences with the aid of sustainable school architecture.
2. School architecture can facilitate learning experiences
The relationship between the space of the school and the educational process is based on a strong
foundation stone: intrinsic motivation a vital link between students, teachers, teaching and learning
methods, curriculum, school environment, community and educational system.
Abraham Maslow introduced in 1971 a different way of perceiving education: the ultimate aim of
education should be learning that life is precious [2]. This perspective opened new directions of
approach. In other words, all subsequent debates regarding educational relations have taken place only
in terms of authenticity, two-way knowledge sharing, determination, understanding, security
(consistency, stability and suitability), equity, empathy, continuity and agreement.
In March 2000, The European Council elaborated at Lisbon the Memorandum of Lifelong
Learning, which grounded the most important directions of action for educational public policies
within its members. From the Memorandum strategy, six action principles came out: new basic
competencies for all, investment in human resources, encouraging innovation, valorising learning,
reorientation, conciliation and home learning.
New learning principles self-centred learning, network learning, experiential learning and
collaborative learning have a profound impact on the functional configuration of contemporary
schools. Moreover, every school design approach should take into account all 8 types of human
intelligence, which all assume different aptitudes, abilities and learning modalities (verbal / linguistic;
logical / mathematical; visual / spatial; musical / rhythmical; kinesthetic / bodily; interpersonal;
intrapersonal and naturalist).
Educational specifications (ed specs) are meant to provide a working foundation for organizing the
initial representation diagram of the architecture typology of school buildings, tracking specific
functional areas for elementary schools, secondary schools and high schools [3]. Three sets of patterns
were identified in the spatial configurations of contemporary school buildings:
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
3
- primary patterns concerns 7 functional zones: Administration, Athletic, Science, Arts, Media,
Cafeteria, Neighbourhoods;
- secondary patterns unite 5 elements defining the areas: The Streets, Common Areas Outside the
Home, The Porch, The Home, The Main Entrance;
- tertiary patterns define the essence of the educational facility and are comprised of elements that
detail the specificity of secondary patterns: fixed features, sociohistorical resources, transparency,
ceiling heights.
Other four types of schools, which distinguish themselves from the general analysis criteria are: the
urban bridge school; the school that occupies several stories of a multi-storey building; the floating
school and the underground school.
One cannot talk about the schools of the future without taking into account the exponential
explosion, beyond any possible imagination, of the level of technology intrusion in everything related
to knowledge. What is not going to change in the future? The answers to this question may be found if
we go back to Maslow’s pyramid. Human needs (Physiological, Safety, Love and belonging, Esteem,
Recognition and respect, Cognitive, Esthetical and Self-actualization) will most likely stay the same.
The nature of the learning content, the nature of the needed skills and the diverse nature of the
information sources will certainly come against a profound change.
3. An integrated approach through cross-disciplinary teams and dialogue
Studies have revealed two of the significant factors that cause a decreased building performance,
lowered by 30% during building occupation, compared to the estimated performances from design
stage: lack of active involvement of building users in design, operations and maintenance together
with the poor quality of handovers of building projects to facility managers [4].
Buildings are merely a frame for the activities that take place inside, and this frame can help, or can
restrain the specific ways in which these activities take place. An architect needs to develop the
capacity to discover, not only the types of specific actions that a new building will host, but more
importantly, the way in which the building's occupants will develop their activities in the future, and
the possible internal relationships they will develop.
Through dialogue, an architect may discover design requirements [5] unexpressed clearly by the
client by maintaining opened collaboration relationships between all interested parties: young scholars,
students, teachers, school directors, community members, politicians, designers, research institutes.
Solutions that fit all these needs may transform the project in a radical manner.
What should we, as architects avoid when designing a new sustainable school building? What are
the possible design traps in educational architecture? During this research we identified 5 possible
misleading features encountered in architectural practice [6]:
- the knowledge trap: not asking enough questions; accept opinions of the experts without
considering the practical applicability of their recommendations;
- the model trap: the application of old solutions (which went well in several projects) to a new
project; the examples considered to be the "best to put into practice" are not questioned; it is not
examined why certain solutions worked in one context and why the same solutions did not work in
another context;
- the puzzle trap: the idea that a good project will be obtained when using graphic patterns that
incorporate the entire list of required criteria;
- the figurative trap: configuration of spaces and dimensions result directly from normative theories;
- the image and symbols trap: anchoring in predetermined spatial typologies.
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
4
The analytical avoidance of the trap network within an integrated design process will be able to
form a conscious architect, armed with the presence of spirit. Regarding recently built sustainable
schools, architects may face the following matter: How do we know if our intentions from the design
stage have succeeded and how do we find out if the school is really being used properly? [7] The
answers to this question can be found through in-depth comparative analyses of the results obtained
from post-occupancy evaluations.
In the chapter entitled, in an evocative way, "Designing as if People Matter" [8] the authors
recommend that we should aim for an architecture with an aesthetic role precisely because it suits,
protects and enchants people. Analysing this urge, we have analysed, during this research, new
questions, which can find their answers only in the dialogue with the school’s users: What detail
configurations match, what details offer the feeling of protection and what is enchanting in the
architecture of a school? In order to find solutions, an interactive design approach is required, which
involves a deep research of the transitions: between users and architect, between building and context.
4. Sustainable school buildings as a normal architectural approach for education
All education is environmental education [...] by what is included or excluded we teach the young
that they are part of or apart from the natural world”.
Education for Sustainable Development has become a long-term strategic objective across the
world. The strategy adopted by The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in
2005 plans integrating sustainability as a central nucleus within the educational curricula by 2040 [9].
In a cross-disciplinary approach, the school building, the schoolyard, the school garden, the school
schedule come to be an integrating part of an educational system grounded on the vision of sustainable
development. ESD corroborates 5 key-characteristics: cross-disciplinary curriculum; experiential
learning; the study of policy influence on ecosystems; collaborative learning and intensification of
public connections; action research, with the intent of serving local and global communities.
Sustainability is a live, regenerative, dynamic concept, which will further develop in time. Taking
into account the current worldwide situation (the restrictive measures taken against the pandemic),
both resilient design as well as sustainable design should represent a normal design approach,
cultivated within academia and normally engaged in the architectural practice. A deep understanding
of the concept of sustainability may be achieved exclusively upon embracing all nuances.
Exploring theories, legislative frames, building evaluation standards and good architectural
practices, we can polish the multiple facets of the complex concept of “sustainability”, in order to
promote a pragmatic approach. A thorough analysis highlights one of the less talked about facets, the
risk of sustainability redundancy: a vast concept may very easily fall into the trap of rigid language
through its vague and inadequate application. The concept of greenwashing speaks about a way of
“money laundry” practiced by companies, purposely declaring to agree with being green, but really
abusing its consumers’ ecologic profile in order to draw profit. Reducing the complexity of sustainable
architecture to a few key-words, as efficient, solar, green, ecological, healthy, passive, reused, recycled
can follow a proverbial pulling of the green wool over someone’s eyes.
Simply getting a good score within a checklist of a certification system does not guarantee the
actual implementation of a good practice. Therefore, the issue of periodic recertification of sustainable
buildings must be considered, in keeping with the evolution of technologies and design theories.
Following the idea that an architectural object exists only in relation to its users, the logical thread
we further pursue explores deciphering the ways in which school architecture could better answer its
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
5
users’ needs. How can a school building teach? The answer to this key-question defines 4 levels of
encouraging learning experiences [10]:
1. multisensorial influencing the learning experiences of the school users through tactile, visual,
auditory and olfactory interaction with the school building and site;
2. dissemination communicating information concerning the school building, the active engagement
of the community the school belongs to, educating the public (school occupants, community
members, construction professionals);
3. curricular integrating the school’s built environment in the curricula: school design project,
building envelope, site, building services, equipment, they all can become subjects of study
4. research analysis of the school building design project, of its incorporated technologies, analysis
of building performance and its impact on the users.
Specialized literature contains heterogeneous definitions of categories and priorities. In this matter,
a filter of analysis was necessary. Table 1 below introduces 25 “puzzle pieces” which deconstruct the
sustainability of a school building and are grouped into 5 original thematic categories: Settled Schools,
Balanced Schools, Comprehensive Schools, Calibrated Schools and Grounded Schools. Each of these
components arguments in favour of the importance of a specific component of a sustainable school
and synthesizes a series of design recommendations.
Table 1. The 25 interconnected defining elements of a sustainable school building.
25 interconnected
defining elements of the
sustainability of a school
building, grouped in 5
thematic categories,
which answer an original
analysis filter:
What is it in the
sustainable architecture
of a school that has the
power to educate its
users?
4 analysed levels:
1) multisensorial
2) dissemination
3) curricular
4) research
Settled schools
1. Site
2. Transportation / Mobility
3. Energy
4. Lighting
5. Safety & Security
Balanced schools
6. Materials & Resources
7. Structural Systems
8. Modularity & Prefabrication
9. Water Management
10. Waste Management
Comprehensive schools
11. Image
12. Orientation & Signage
13. Accessibility / Universal Design
14. Interior Design & Furniture
15. Health, Nutrition & Physical Activity
Calibrated schools
16. Operations & Maintenance
17. Indoor Air Quality
18. Acoustics
19. Building services, BMS, Smart schools
20. Information and Communications Technology
Grounded schools
21. Awareness
22. Local Footprint
23. Costs & Financing
24. New or Rehabilitated
25. Innovation
Grouping these 25 items into 5 thematic categories is not aimed at being fully comprehensive. In
keeping with future research priorities, the 25 puzzle pieces may be regrouped on different premises
and may thus make the subject of new “pictures”. Two possible examples are grouping these
components under the umbrella-notion of comfort or of building envelope.
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
6
The hypothesis launched in this paper can be summarized in the following manner: a school
building is sustainable when it becomes a 3D interactive textbook of Education for Sustainable
Development. In order to discover ways through which this hypothesis may be applied in the case of
Romanian school architecture, we put the following instrument to use: an 8-boxes matrix type SWOT
Analysis. This instrument brings about apart from the well-known SWOT Analysis the generation
of strategies in the 4 intersection resulted fields.
Figure 1. Explanatory scheme for the 8-boxes matrix type SWOT Analysis model
25 SWOT Analysis have been applied, investigating the situation of existing Romanian schools.
They put forward sustainable and educational strategies for Romanian schools integrate design
measures recommended for architects, programming, using, and planning strategies, addressed for the
decision factors and strategies connected to the other levels by which a building is able to educate:
integration in the curriculum, research, communication and dissemination of results.
5. Results and discussions
Following a cross-analysis of the current undergraduate educational system, the research puts forward
sustainable and educational strategies for Romanian school functioning, which corroborate the 4 levels
on which a school building is able to educate: multisensorial, curricular, research, dissemination.
Strengths Weaknesses
Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Opportunities
S O
Strategies
W O
Strategies
Threats
S T
Strategies
W T
Strategies
S O
Strategies
of internal stability
exploit Strengths
in order to
maximize
Opportunities
internal environment
School
Strengths
Weaknesses
external
environment
Opportunities
Threats
defensive strategies
offensive strategies
S T
Strategies =
of internal stability
exploit Strengths in
order to minimize
Threats
W O
Strategies
of internal
development
counter-balance
Weaknesses
through
exploiting
Opportunities
W T
Strategies
of internal
development
counter-balance
Weaknesses and
Opportunities
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
7
On a close inspection of the results derived from this work, it is possible to extract the following
barriers (listed with black bullets) and catalysing factors (listed with white bullets) for implementing
educational and sustainable strategies in Romanian schools:
The correlation between the following statistical data in Romania: the low level of motivation for
the Romanian students (according to latest PISA tests conducted); the highest dropout rate in the
European Union (19% among the 15-18 age group); very low rate of educational accommodation
among disabled children; infantile mortality rate (the highest in the European Union); poverty
degree among children (over 34%); high unemployment rate among young adults (over 23%).
The built environment of Romanian schools falls behind when compared to the educational process
it hosts. There is no official database of schools built from 1990 onwards but it is estimated that
over the past 26 years fewer than 400 schools have been built (2% of the total number, estimated at
21.000). Over 80% of the existing Romanian schools have been built before 1970.
Lack of correlation between legal documents. The national strategies concerning education and
sustainable development are aligned with the levels of the European Union, leaving behind the
existing norms and the architectural practice of educational facilities. Although assumed as a
strategic objective, sustainable development is not part of the national curriculum and is still
subject to extra-curricular activities.
School projects are about attaining minimal safety, health, comfort rules, while sticking to an also
minimal budget, without quoting optimizing its users’ health and comfort as an objective. Due to
the lack of ensuring basic needs (protection against wind or rain, plumbing, electrical and thermal
systems, security and comfort, transport), many schools face yearly short-term decisions.
The new building and rehabilitation are ordered by the public local authorities without consulting
with decision factors experienced in the educational field or with schools leadership. There are
tenders but there are no architecture contests. Therefore, the price continues to be the most relevant
criterion during a tender. The execution works are often subcontracted by third parties. Materials
and finishing are inferior in quality when compared to the characteristics required in the initial
project and there are no quality checks for installed products.
The generalized practice of improvised works is designed to meet initial requirements which have
been ignored and later discovered; the works are generally the result of external pressure: school
year beginnings, inspections, external evaluations, fines, press alerts.
Lack of involvement on the professionals’ part (designers, builders, suppliers) in (in)forming the
teaching and administrative staff of a school after finalizing a project.
Central and local authorities appear to be completely oblivious to the complementary services that
accompany these projects on mid and long term (costs, trainings, operations and maintenance).
o The greatest opportunity is embodied by some local communities who are promoting projects and
numerous activities towards sustainable development within the school environment, in association
with NGO’s or private companies.
o The voice of the civil society on the one hand and the need to adapt and harmonize the legal frame
on the other will attract the need to transform the educational built environment.
o Keeping a high banner for educational architecture, to the detriment of attaining a minimal
threshold (survival, ensuring basic needs).
o Maximizing the time and resource investments during the design, research and evaluation stages.
o Taking into account the evidence that can be obtained from comparative analyses, benefitting from
a ground base of best practices, the institutional leadership of our schools may be able to think long
term plans. Being involved in the dialogue and understanding that their feedback makes a
difference, the decision factors will end up wanting for the school they are managing to become a
landmark playing the part of a magnet for the community it belongs to.
o The correlation between the very good quality of Information and Communications Technology
(ITC) professional skills and the medium internet speed in our country, situated in top 6 countries
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
8
worldwide over the past years. An intelligent ITC integration will not separate the education
institution from the community. Instead, it will facilitate access to cultural, social, therapeutic,
family and support services.
Finally, we would like to emphasize some further research directions opened by this research:
Implementing a POE in an existing school building in Romania, with an existing school population,
with the help of building performance research institutes and with the help of educational research
institutes.
Extended implementation of POE, on a representative sample of schools, from each type of
standard school projects, with the intent of exploring rehabilitation opportunities for Romanian
schools in the direction of sustainability.
Revision of NP 010 / 1997 Normative regarding design, construction and utilization of school
buildings and high school buildings currently in force in our country.
Research on pre-primary school education, based on learning by playing. The results of such a
study can drive to realize a reviewed normative for kindergartens and also to create guides for
exterior playing design features.
Initializing practical activities in faculties where built environment is studied and promoting
students’ activities by according credits: students in architecture, engineering, building services can
participate in construction workshops in rural schools with various construction techniques,
involving the local communities;
Initializing teaching programs for administrative school staff, based on sets of techniques
incorporating users’ complaints analysis, as diagnostic tools over the problems of a school
building;
Creating websites like “teacher’s toolbox” containing abstracts, presentations, questionnaires,
checklists, application guides followed by successful examples of project lessons for each of the 25
components defining a sustainable school building, detailed on specific thematic areas;
Creating a digital Map of all Romanian schools involved in programs, projects, competitions or
other activities following a sustainable direction, based on existing and on future studies.
Figure 2 below explains the process recommended for future responsive architectural approach in
regards of Romanian educational facilities: an Evidence-based Design approach (EBD) through Post-
Occupancy Evaluation method (POE) in order to sustain Romanian education with the help of
sustainable school architecture.
When sustainability will be truly integrated within the curriculum on all education levels, and the
educational system truly becomes not just on the legal documents a system promoting Education
for Sustainable Development, from that moment on we might witness a paradigm shift. In other words,
experiences would be turned into knowledge through guided reflection, critical thinking would have a
sustainable ground base and thus, sustainable behaviours would catch shape.
Today’s students may become tomorrow’s architects and the day after tomorrow’s project
coordinating architects. The aces up their sleeves will be: sustainability as interpretation key, a
baggage of evidence, and design experiences in cross-disciplinary teams. Responsive architects in
dialogue with their users can turn the constraints into innovation and expressivity opportunities.
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
9
Figure 2. Explanatory diagram presenting the practical applicability of the results for the cyclic
process of evaluation research design use for a school building
What qualifies as sustainable in
a school building?
+
What has the power to educate?
oMultisensorial
oCurricular
oResearch
oDissemination
Double analysis filter over school buildings:
generating national
evidence
evidence from
international research
on schools
Sustainable school buildings in
Romania (new / rehabilitated)
playing the role of interactive and
attractive 3D textbooks of
Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD)
Settled schools
Balanced schools
Comprehensive schools
Calibrated schools
Grounded schools
design
integrated, responsive
participative
based on dialogue
cross-disciplinary teams
1990 2020
< 2% from total number
of school buildings
< 1970
aprox. 80% school buildings
POE (Post-Occupancy Evaluations)
Existing schools
competences, experience
design teams
school users
decision factors
construction industry
contractors, suppliers
25 SWOT
Anaysis
S
(Strengths)
W
(Weaknesses)
O
(Opportunities)
sustainable
educational
strategies
T
(Threats)
WMCAUS 2020
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 032106
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032106
10
6. Conclusions
Transition to the information society will attract an innovative sustainable school architecture, which
will help develop new learning modalities. There is a powerful need of adequate educational buildings,
able to invite, encourage and inspire. The existing infrastructure of school buildings can be utilized to
form community’s centres. As regarding new buildings, the modalities of teaching and learning should
shape the form of the building and not backwards.
The built environment of an educational facility bears a great responsibility towards those who
learn within. However, creating a habit of permanent dialogue between the design team and the school
users is essential. Current practice, where design solutions emerge as a result of successive suggestions
coming from other disciplines, is not just obsolete, it is also very hazardous. The current national
context depicts the following situation: the school users are completely absent from any dialogue with
the design teams. Moreover, the architects expect the users to be content with the solutions they got.
Instead of blaming the ulterior modifications users have operated after building occupation, the
architects need to be made aware of the fact that a school project does not begin with a solution.
On the contrary, it is only the receptive architects, as moderators of the dialogue between all
involved actors in the design and construction process, that are able to develop a design brief fit to
serve the current educational act. Architects must train to develop connections and read between the
lines. Starting from these premises, this research has investigated ways through which an architect can
translate sustainable criteria and the needs of the school users into architectural design solutions.
With the intent of creating a unitary vision for new sustainable school buildings which encourage
learning experiences, this research paper supports an integrated, responsive, evidence and dialogue-
based design approach, created in cross-disciplinary teams: professionals responsible of designing and
realizing the project, consultants, school users, public authorities and local communities.
References
[1] W. K. Richmond, The Literature of Education. A Critical Bibliography. 1945-1970, London:
Methuen, 1972.
[2] A. Maslow, “Motivaţie şi personalitate”, Bucharest: Editura Trei, 2007.
[3] B. Perkins, R. C. Bordwell, Building type basics for elementary and secondary schools (2nd
ed.), New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 2010
[4] Sci-Network, Post Occupancy Evaluation. An insight into current POE-related policies and
practices by European public authorities to drive sustainable construction and innovation”,
p.6, 2012.
[5] K. A. Franck, T. von S. Howard, Design through Dialogue. A Guide for Clients and
Architects, London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2010.
L. Groat, D. Wang, “Architectural Research Methods (1st ed.), Wiley, p. 115, 2001 and an
interview with P. C. Lippman, 2014.
http://holtthink.tumblr.com/post/76395390247/interview-with-peter-c-lippman-author-of
[accessed 20.03.2020].
[6] A. Taylor, K. Engass, Linking Architecture and Education: sustainable design for learning
environments”, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.pp. 230-231, 2009.
[7] J. L. Nasar, „Designing as if People Matter” in Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from
Schools of Architecture, New York: Fairchild Publications, Inc., 2007.
[8] UNECE, “Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development”, 2005.
http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/education-for-sustainable-development/about-the-
strategy-for-esd/the-strategy.html [accessed 20.03.2020].
[9] C. Schiller, Buildings as teaching tools: a case study analysis to determine best practices that
teach environmental sustainability, PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 8-9, 2012.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
The book presents numerous examples of dynamic designs that are the result of interdisciplinary understanding of place. Taylor includes designer perspectives, forums derived from commentary by outside contributors involved in school planning, and a wealth of photographs of thoughtful and effective solutions to create learning environments from comprehensive design criteria. © 2009 by the University of New Mexico Press. All rights reserved.
Motivaţie şi personalitate
  • A Maslow
A. Maslow, "Motivaţie şi personalitate", Bucharest: Editura Trei, 2007.
Building type basics for elementary and secondary schools
  • B Perkins
  • R C Bordwell
B. Perkins, R. C. Bordwell, "Building type basics for elementary and secondary schools" (2 nd ed.), New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010
Post Occupancy Evaluation. An insight into current POE-related policies and practices by European public authorities to drive sustainable construction and innovation
  • Sci-Network
Sci-Network, "Post Occupancy Evaluation. An insight into current POE-related policies and practices by European public authorities to drive sustainable construction and innovation", p.6, 2012.
Buildings as teaching tools: a case study analysis to determine best practices that teach environmental sustainability
  • Schiller
C. Schiller, "Buildings as teaching tools: a case study analysis to determine best practices that teach environmental sustainability", PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 8-9, 2012.