1

The 21st Century Learning Environment:

Education in the Digital Era
James Moehring

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of:
Master of Architecture

University of Washington
2012

Committee:
Joel Loveland, Chair
Chris Meek
Dave Miller

Program authorized to offer degree:

Department of Architecture
 2
Acknowledgements:

I’d like to the my advisors Joel Loveland, Chris Meek, and Dave Miller for
their effort through the entire year of 2012 to help me in the process and
production of the final thesis presentation and document. Their knowledge
and expertise has shaped my thesis and understanding of education in a more
comprehensive way than I could have imagined.

I would also like to thank my coworkers from Bassetti Architects for allowing
me use them as a resource for my relevant thesis. The have shown great intrest
and support through out my time in Seattle.

Finally, I owe my parents many thanks for their love and support through my six
and a half years in architecture school.
 3
Table of Contents
List of Figures 4
Introduction 6
Thesis Statement 9
Literature Review
Section 1: History of Education Reform and School Architecture 10
Section 2: Child Development, the Teaching Curriculum, and the Physical Environment 17
Section 3: Information and Computer Technology in School Design 22
The Technology used in past and today 23
Changing Factors 24
Future ICT Devices That Will Change the Classroom Environment 25
Case Studies 28
Learning Types and Development Groups with ICT 30
The Role of the teacher 32
Spaces Created for ICT 33
Section 4: Sustainable Technology and a Healthy School Environment 36
Section 5: Urban Schools and Seattle 40
Methodology
Section 1: Site and Program 45
Section 2: Learning types and Age Development with Technology 56
Section 3: The Learning Environment 59
Conclusions 73
Appendix 75
Bibliography 85
 4
List of Figures
1.1 S. Wilderspin, System for the Education of the Young 10
1.2 Colonie d’Avernes, France 1920 10
1.3 Exterior view of the Open Air School in Amsterdam 11
1.4 Plan of the Open Air School in Amsterdam 11
1.5 Maria Montessori 12
1.6 Crow Island School by Eliel and Eero Saarinen 13
1.7 Crow Island School outdoor classroom 13
1.8 Plan of open classroom 14
1.9 Diamond Ranch High School by Morphosis: Interstitial School 15
1.10 Diamond Ranch High School by Morphosis: Interstitial School 15
1.11 Gymnasium Friedrich II. Lorch, Germany by Guenther Behnisch 16
1.12 Interior of Gymnasium Friedrich II. 16
2.1 Piaget’s stages of child development 17
2.2 Montessori’s planes of child development 18
2.3 Grades broken into development groups 20
3.1 Framework for the 21st Century Education 22
3.2 Evolution of I.C.T. in the Classroom 23
3.3 Traditional teaching methods 24
3.4 Teaching with IWB and tablets 24
3.5 Interactive whiteboard in the classroom 25
3.6 Tablet technology in the classroom 25
3.7 Apple’s iPad has established itself as the leader in tablets 26
3.8 Connection wirelessly outside the classroom 27
3.9 School of One varied learning settings called “modalities” 28
3.10 School of One diagram by the AAF 29
3.11 School of One room layouts 29
3.12 Students have Unique Needs 32
3.13 Khan Academy Learning Tree Algorithm 32
3.14 EdLab by Edison Schools 33
3.15 EdLab Prototype 33
4.1 Building energy use percentages 36
4.2 Daylighting linked to student performance 37
4.3 LEED, CHPS, and WSSP 39
5.1 Exterior view of the Leutshenbach School, in Zurich 40
5.2 Leutshenbach School interior common space 40
5.3 Changes in Downtown Enrollment by Attendance Area Schools 41
5.4 Total Downtown Population Census Tract 42
 5
5.5 Downtown Residential Construction 42
5.6 Downtown Share of John Hay Attendance Area Births 43
5.7 Total John Hay Enrollment Projections 43
6.1 Seattle, WA 45
6.2 South Lake Union, Seattle 45
6.3 Seattle Public Schools District map for Elementary and Middle School 47
6.4 Seattle Context and Adjacencies 48
6.5 Site and Immediate adjacent context 49
6.6 Seattle zoning map for South Lake Union 50
6.7 Existing site conditions 50
6.8 Site Analysis of Environmental Forces 51
6.9 Site Analysis of Contextual Forces 51
6.10 Areal view of the School on the Site 52
6.11 Programming and Square Footage 54
6.12 Programming Conceptually Grouped and Reorganized 54
6.13 Lighting Criteria 55
7.1 Age Development Groups and Grade 56
7.2 How Age Groups Learn with Technology 56
7.3 Learning Types 57
7.4 First - Second Grade Program Diagram 58
7.5 Third - Fifth Grade Program Diagram 58
7.6 Sixth -Eight Grade Program Diagram 58
7.7 Building Axon Diagram 60
7.8 Diagram of Vertical Circulation 61
7.9 Diagram of Classroom Locations 61
7.10 Diagram of “Boxes” 61
7.11 Diagram of “Neighborhoods” 61
7.12 Age Group: 1st Grade - 2nd Grade 63
7.13 Age Group: 3rd Grade - 4th Grade 64
7.14 Age Group: 6th Grade - 8th Grade 65
7.15 School Entryway 68
7.16 School Playground 69
7.17 1st Grade Neighborhood 70
7.18 3rd-5th Grade Social Lounge 71
7.19 6th-8th Grade Electronic Cafe 72
 6
Introduction

“The average high school graduate has spent about 13,000 hours within the walls of a
public school building. These 13,000 hours are potentially the most valuable hours of his
life...” – William G. Carr Executive Secretary of the National Education Association1

“The world of learning is changing, in no small measure due to the challenges of the
global knowledge society, where students need to be able to master such 21st century
skills as critical thinking, problem solving, innovation, digital and media literacy, and
collaboration, as well such cross disciplinary content areas as civic literacy, global
awareness, and environmental literacy.” – Partnership for the 21st Century Skills2

“We can’t expect children to learn 21st- century skills in schools built for the 1950s. We
need schools designed for 21st century success. – Chad P. Wick CEO of KnowledgeWorks
Foundation3

School age is an important stage in life that shapes each student over time into
a unique adult. The experience and habits that an individual forms during childhood
will deeply affect their development, health, and personality throughout their life. The
majority of the school day is spent learning from a teacher and curriculum, but social
interaction and experiences that happen in schools are also a large part of learning
and becoming an adult. School is a place where learning goes beyond the teacher at
the front of the classroom; it is also shaped by other students and the physical space.
The physical learning environment has a significant impact on students and how they
learn. The environment that shapes the school equally shapes the student. Spaces that
encourage collaboration, health, development, and inspiration give students a place that
1
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 1. Print.
2
“The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.” The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.p21.org/>
3
The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning. New York:
Abrams, 2010. 1. Print. Pg. 1
 7
encourages success.

The way students learn has evolved over time, but the classroom has “changed
relatively little in the last 150 years.”4 It is hard to believe that the school system has
not changed over this period of time in correlation to the magnitude of changes in
information and communication technology outside the classroom. Information and
communication technology is used today in traditional classroom settings, but the
learning environment has not been shaped to accommodate for the different learning
techniques and educational programs of the twenty-first century school. In the next fifty
years, technology will start to play a much larger role in the education of our youth. Our
current classrooms will not suffice for success because they are not prepared for the
changes in technology and the pedagogical response to those changes. It is important
though to see that technology is a tool, not a means to an end. “Asking ‘How can
technology make a better student?’ is the same as asking ‘How can the refrigerator make
me a better cook?’”5 Reliance on technology alone cannot guide the future school.
Congruent changes in the educational program and physical environment are also need
to change to create the future school.

Building technology has changed throughout time, and sustainable technology

over time has layered into current school designs because of the realization of the
importance in health and education of children. Programs such as LEED for Schools
and C.H.P.S. are becoming standard benchmarks for healthy schools. Children learn
from their environment. By making that environment a tool for learning, children will
be able to better understand how their surroundings function. Providing a healthy
and daylit learning environment for future generations gives children and teachers the
expectations for a sustainable environment instead of becoming more insensitive “to
4
McGregor, Jane. “Space, Power and the Classroom.”Forum: for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Edu-
cation. 46.1 (2004): 15. Print.
5
The New York Times Company. “Schools For Tomorrow: Bringing Technology into the Class-
room.” The New York Times SFTM White Paper (2011). Print.
 8
brutish conditions of environments designed for maximum efficiency.”6 Sustainable
technology and communication and information technology are the tools influencing the
change of design for the twenty-first century school.

6
Benedikt, Michael. “Environmental Stoicism and Place Machismo.” Harvard Design Magazine Win-
ter/Spring.16 (2002): 2. Print.
 9
Thesis Statement

The design of future schools and learning environments will be influenced by

advances in information and communication technology and the pedagogical responses
to the freedoms that it provides. Understanding the physical environment connection to
the future roles of teachers and students in the digital age is an important relationship
that will shape the classroom. It is important to create learning spaces in which the
physical environment will have as much of an impact on learning as digital technology
has on new learning typologies. Creating a healthy and sustainable environment that is
integrated with future school design will give teachers and children a better environment
in which to teach and learn. This thesis proposes a learning structure and the
subsequent physical changes that will take place in redefining the learning environment
in a twenty first century urban school. It will facilitate the advancements in future
learning methods and digital devices while addressing issues that come along with the
decision of locating a school in the densifying urban neighborhood of South Lake Union,
Seattle.

Figure 1.1 S. Wilderspin, System for the Education of
the Young.
Figure 1.2 Colonie d’Avernes, France 1920.
10
Literature Review
Section 1: History of Education Reform and School Architecture
To understand the future of school design, it is important to take a look at the
history of schools and recognize the teaching methods and designs that have shaped
schools to the present day. At the start of the 19th century the United States’ and
Europe’s first public schools began to form in conjunction with the rise of the industrial
revolution (Fig. 1.1, 1.2). Grammar schools in the United States taught six years of
basic skills sometimes referred to as the “3 R’s”, reading, writing, and arithmetic.7
The grammar school was essentially an extension of the home, hence the name the
“school house.” Schools during the late 19th century in the United States were viewed
as “a solution to a host of social problems, and as a tool of economic and political
development.”8 The “common-school” reform developed by Horace Mann identified
that all children should have an equal opportunity to learn. Rather than all the students
being taught in a single room, the reform based on Prussian teaching methods that
physically separated students into grades. These small school buildings were numerous
across the nation because of the need to be within walking distance. The conditions of
these many schools fluctuated greatly. The environments in which students learned
varied between schools and regions. “Health and safety conditions related to sanitation,
hygiene, and the danger of fire were less than ideal and varied location to location, with
little in the way of consistent regulatory oversight. As a result, the quality of schools
varied considerably, depending for the most part on the experience and knowledge of
the architect.”9
7
“The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.” The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.p21.org/>
8
Rury, John L. Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Schooling. Mahwah,
N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2005. 75. Print.
9
Hille, R T. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley and Sons,
2011. Print.

Figure 1.3 Exterior view of the Open Air School in
Amsterdam.
Figure 1.4 Plan of the Open Air School in Amsterdam.
11
In the early 20th century, industrialization and urbanization defined the
Progressive Era of education.10 Health and safety in schools became such a large
concern that standards were made to improve the quality of the classroom. For many
schools, windows were the main source of light and ventilation into the room. The room
layout and dimensions were heavily influenced by the properties of light and ventilation,
and if the architect did not understand these parameters the classroom would not be
effectively ventilated or adequately daylit.11 Standards such as minimum ceiling heights
of 12 feet along with large tall operable windows allowed light to fill the room and also
ventilated the space more efficiently. These traditional schools typically lined children in
rows of desks bolted to the floor and the teacher would stand at the front of the room
with the chalk board. Typically the class would face forward with the windows on the
left-hand side because students were required to be right handed.12 Double loaded
corridors were used to have the most efficient circulation, structure, materials, and
distribution of mechanical systems. Schools were usually one or two stories depending
on the density of the site.
Due to previous poor health conditions, education reform sparked innovation in
school design. The now iconic modern school called “The First Open Air School for Sick
Children” by Johannes Duiker and Bernard Bijvoet (Fig. 1.3, 1.4) opened in Amsterdam
in 1929. The functional architecture of the school directly addressed health and hygiene
by integrating it in to the educational program. The design showed the desire for light
and ventilation in school. The transparency of the building let light in, but it also linked
the school to the context and life outside. This manifestation of hygiene and pedagogy
in built form set a visionary example of education reform.
While public schools were being construction across the nation, theories of
10
Rury, John L. Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Schooling. Mahwah,
N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2005. 182. Print.
11
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 58. Print.
12
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 53. Print.

Figure 1.5 Maria Montessori.
12
education and teaching methods began to change the way schools were designed.
Theories questioned traditional teaching methods and the traditional layout of the
classroom.
“If we put before the mind’s eye the ordinary schoolroom, with its rows
of ugly desks placed in geometrical order, crowded together so that
there shall be as little moving room as possible, desks almost all the
same size, with just space enough to hold books, pencils, and paper, and
add a table, some chairs the bare walls, and possibly a few pictures,
we can reconstruct the only emotional activity that can possibly go on
in such a place. It is all made ‘for listening’ – because simply studying
lessons out of a book is only another kind of listening; it marks the
dependency of one mind upon another…” – John Dewey, American
Philosopher of education 1900 13
Education reform stated that the traditional style of teaching creates passive students
rather than students who are active in the learning process. Teaching philosophies
believed that the traditional methods were unresponsive to the needs of the individual
child, or The Whole Child.14 The Whole Child concept believes that every child is unique
and that the education system and teaching methods should adapt to each special need.
Maria Montessori (Fig. 1.5), an Italian physician and teacher, believed that
children will always learn best by teaching themselves and their peers. Children are
independent and self-discover their way through school. This idea thus changed the
idea and role of the teacher. She believed that the teacher could only assist in what she
considered to be a natural discovery and realization of one’s self. Richard Neutra also
said, “Individualities must unfold and not be impaired, but they must be harmonized
13
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 67. Print.
14
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 73. Print.

Figure 1.6 Crow Island School By Eliel and Eero
Saarinen.
Figure 1.7 Crow Island School outdoor classroom.
13
as well, teamed and tuned together.”15 The belief that children best actively learn
by themselves and in groups has led to physical changes from the traditional fixed
classroom.
This diversified self-directed education and instruction lead to more creative
ways of learning and teaching. Activity based learning encouraged individual and group
based activities that were connected to practical applications. Therefore, students
were able to grasp the usefulness of learning to something real and tangible.16 A prime
example of this in design is the Crow Island School by Eliel and Eero Saarinen (Fig. 1.6,
1.7). It was “inspired by the laboratory school that emphasizes self-direction in learning
and a rejection of classroom citation.17 Each classroom is home-like and allows for
diversified learning. The classroom’s intimate environment is a characteristic of the
child-centered learning environment. It contains an open room with an adjacent small
work area, and each room has a connected outdoor learning space. “The architectural
expression strikes a careful balance between seriousness of purpose and common
everyday use.”18
During the Post War Era, an increased birth rate caused a great increase in the
number of schools and building technology innovation. Schools needed to be built at a
rapid rate to keep up with all the suburban families living the American dream. Schools
were expansive one-story buildings that took advantage of their suburban context,
connecting the interiors to larger outdoor areas.19 Functional schools that were easy to
build and maintain were very common during this time period. The schools were not
15
Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. [S.l.]: F.W. Dodge, 1954. XI. Print.
16
Hille, R T. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley and Sons,
2011. 16. Print.
17
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 100. Print.
18
Hille, R T. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley and Sons,
2011. 89. Print.
19
Hille, R T. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley and Sons,
2011. 91. Print.

Figure 1.8 Plan of open classroom
Figure 1.8 Open-plan classrooms at Fodrea Community
School in Columbus, IN
14
built to last very long due to the idea of constant change and growth in the nation.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s social unrest caused a need for an increase in security
and safety in schools. Many architects decided to move away from the modern school
movement and started to look at designing the school from the interior. Views to the
exterior and connecting to community were considered a security issue and also a
distraction to learning. Experimental ideas like the open classroom shaped the interiors
while the exterior was a sealed off. Classrooms were viewed as a physical constraint on
the creativity of the children. Doors and walls that separated classrooms were removed
in design to create open plan classroom.20 Interiors were designed to be flexible and
adaptable. The rigid exterior contrasted the interior spaces that mixed and strayed into
each other (Fig. 1.8). This removal of separation went in conjunction with the idea of
learning between grades, also called vertical learning. In the years 1965-1967, half of
the schools built in the United States and Europe were open plan schools.21 These open
classrooms ended up being more of a nuance than a revolutionary change in education.
Many teachers would erect walls later to fit the needs of their teaching methods
and curriculum. The way teachers taught and were trained did not change with the
innovative ideas of the architects. Financial constraints and reluctance to tried and
tested teaching methods “doomed the open-plan school to failure.”22
Since the 1990’s, new spaces for technology like computers needed to be
addressed. Computers and televisions were added to classrooms, and additional
spaces like computer labs were added to school programs. “Classrooms, not originally
designed with computers in mind, have often become cluttered overheated spaces.”23
These additions caused a need for replacement and renovations of many older school
buildings constructed in the 1940’s 1950’s and 1960’s. Also, the adoption of building
20
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 135. Print.
21
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 152. Print.
22
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 152. Print.
23
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 154. Print.

Figure 1.9 Diamond Ranch High School by Morphosis.
Figure 1.10 Diamond Ranch High School by Morphosis.
15
codes and restrictions ensured health, safety, security, and structural integrity, but the
bureaucratization of schools repelled experimental teaching. Many modern schools
today focus on teacher-student interaction and school identity. Architects link schools
to their region and context. To become more contextual, schools are reaching out
to communities and bring their community in. Sustainable design and technology is
another way schools can relate to their context and create a unique identity. Some
schools that are considered innovative use architectural form making as a means to
address program issues and architectural related themes (Fig. 1.9 - 1.12). While these
schools seem complex, their physical response to the classroom is pedagogically
traditional.
Schools are complex buildings, and are furthering that complexity by adopting
sustainable standards and additional social roles like community centers. Advancements
in sustainable technology and computer technology have created opportunities
for alternative learning environments, but how do we design a physical space for
technology, something that changes extremely rapidly? It is important to note the
successes and changes in educational design, but it is more important to understand the
reasons for failures of the open plan school that is flexible and adaptable like those in
the 1960’s and 1970’s.
“The need for flexible solutions in school design is almost a mantra in
the history of education. Despite their poor record of success, designers
of learning environments somehow continue to argue the same case.
Ultimately, schools are complex organisms of human relationship, and
their interconnectivity is opposed to individual innovation. An expanded
range of pedagogical possibilities is required of the school building for
the twenty-first century. While in past configurations of teachers and

Figure 1.11 Gymnasium Friedrich II Lorch, Germany
by Guenther Bahnish.
Figure 1.12 Interior of Gymnasium Friedrich II.
16
learners in spaces included teacher instruction, individual group work
and project-based learning, the impact of new technologies, combined
with new theories of learning and intelligences, have extended the
list of possibilities to include technology-based learning with mobile
computers, distance learning and research via the Internet with wireless
routing.”24
The finest schools of the twenty-first century will learn draw from the successes and
learn from the mistakes of past innovative school designs. . “The tenets guiding twenty-
first century learning indicate and support a learner who participates in an active
learning environment.”25 It is also evident that technology-based learning will be a part
of schools, and future schools will need to address pedagogical changing issues with
an innovative change in design. This new design of the physical environment needs to
understand what will be added to the traditional learning environment and what will
remain based on new technologies, learning typologies, and curriculums. Classrooms
and children are connected globally today, and there is a need for a better designed
classroom that can guarantee global success with consideration of the new challenges of
the twenty first century.
24
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. 171. Print.
25
Lippman, Peter C. Evidence-based Design of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Hoboken, NJ: J.
Wiley, 2010. 158. Print.
 17
Section 2: Child Development, the Teaching Curriculum, and the Physical
Environment
Formal Operational Stage Child development is crucial to the physical grouping of grades and the
11- adult
environment in which students learn. The creation of grade levels in the United
States, mentioned earlier, was based on a Prussian teaching methods discovered by
Horace Mann. The form and separation of today’s school system is based on child
development. Physical development and the development of the mind offer suggestions
on how to group different ages of children. “Development is founded on the child’s
Concrete Operational Stage innate characteristics, unfolds according to maturational timetables, and moves
7-11 forward through a series of tasks and challenges of increasing complexity that the child
must master in order to extend her ability to function within herself and within her
environment.”26 The maturation of a child is commonly broken into phases. Jean Piaget,
a Swiss psychologist and philosopher created a development stage theory called the
theory of cognitive development. The way schools are structure today can be directly
Preoperational Stage related to the theory of Piaget.
2-7
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is separated into four different stages
(Fig. 2.1). Each stage is closely associated with the age of the child. Within each
stage are multiple phases and steps that a child will go through. The first stage, called
Sensorimotor Stage, starts at birth and ends around the age of two. Children develop
basic coordination and understanding of the world. The next stage from two to seven
Sensorimotor Stage years old is called the Preoperational Stage. Children begin this stage around the time
they begin to talk. This stage is where playing, pretending, and imagining mostly take
place. Concrete Operational Stage ranges from seven to eleven. In this stage, a stage
Figure 2.1 Piaget’s stages of child development. equivalent to modern elementary schools is the start of logic. Children have the ability
to solve problems of actual objects and events but not to hypothetical problems, thus

26
Davies, Douglas. Child Development: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford Press, 2004. 3.
Print.
 18
the name Concrete Operational Stage. The last learning stage is the Formal Operational
Stage. It starts at eleven years old, or puberty, and continues to adulthood. During this
Fourth Plane stage, children think abstractly and can solve hypothetical problems.27
18 - 24
Physician and educator Maria Montessori likewise divided child development
into “planes”. Her four planes were divided from birth to six years old, from six to twelve
years old, from twelve to eighteen years old, and from eighteen to twenty-four years old
(Fig. 2.2). The first plane’s characteristics are sensory periods and absorptive minds. The
second plane defines children becoming more social and forming “herds”. The third plan
Third Plane represents adolescence and the construction of the adult. The fourth plan is the arrival
12 - 18 of adulthood and independence.28

Author Douglas Davies, like Piaget and Montessori, further demonstrates

separations in age based on mental and physical development. His terms follow the
common language closer in defining child development stages. The infant stage is
considered from birth to the age of one, toddlers range from one to three years old,
Second Plane Preschool is defined from three to six years old, Middle Childhood age ranges from the
6 - 12
age of six to eleven or twelve, and adolescence is considered to be around 12, or the
start of puberty, and beyond.29 These age groups can be easily seen in today’s school
structure.

The physical development of a child also plays a role in the structure of the
First Plane current education system. Although the previous people categorized the age of eleven
birth - 6 or twelve to eighteen as a psychologically similar, the physical difference between the
eleven and eighteen year olds is drastic. Younger children in this age group can be
greatly intimidated physically by the older ones even though they are considered to be
27
Kohler, Richard. Jean Piaget. London: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2008. Print.
Figure 2.2 Montessori’s planes of child development. 28
Montessori, Maria. The Four Planes of Education. Amsterdam: Association Montessori Internatio-
nale, 1971. Print.
29
Davies, Douglas. Child Development: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford Press, 2004. 3.
Print.
 19
in the same development stage. Middle schools act as a divider for this stage because
of this physical change. The result of the mental and physical child development is how
public schools structure their educational institutions.

Maria Montessori saw the mental development of a child in an active way. She
saw traditional schools that forced students to sit and learn quietly similar to slavery.
“The principle of slavery still pervades pedagogy, and, therefore, the same principle
pervades the school. I need only one proof – the stationary desks and chairs.”30 She
believed that forcing a child to sit still during the learning place was counter to the
natural way of learning. “[M]ental development must be connected with movement
and be dependent on it. It is vital that educational theory and practice should be
informed by that idea.”31 It is shown that children lose concentration after five or ten
minutes when sitting perfectly still. The increase in movement, the vestibular system
and the balance system, “activates special hormones, such as neurotrophin, that have a
tremendous effect on brain activity.”32 This shows that the traditional classroom design
has a scientific relationship between the surroundings, the activity, and development of
a child.

In addition to the school curriculum, teachers must also take in account the
developmental (maturational) curriculum and students’ personal (individual) curriculum.
“For the classroom teacher ... the curriculum presents a problem of balancing and
coordinating three sets of priorities.”33 Child development, the school curriculum,
and physical environment all go hand in hand. It is important for the teachers’ role
30
Montessori, Maria, and Anne E. George. The Montessori Method. New York: Schocken Books, 1964.
Print.

31
The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning. New York:
Abrams, 2010. 55. Print.

32
The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning. New York:
Abrams, 2010. 82. Print.
33
Elkind, David. Child Development and Education: A Piagetian Perspective. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1976. 195. Print.
 20
GROUP 4 to match the curriculum and the physical environment. The 1960’s and 1970’s open
plan classrooms and curriculum mismatch justified that the curriculum and physical
6TH GRADE 7TH GRADE 8TH GRADE
environment must be considered as one element. The curriculum outweighed the
physical environment so the classroom failed and had to be modified.

Each development stage, or sets of grades, has a different curriculum with

GROUP 3 different learning typologies based on maturation and progression through grades.
3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE 5TH GRADE The learning types effects the classroom environment and vice versa. To fit current
standard school bureaucratization, grades are a necessary framework to work within
today. Grouping grades into development stages from a programmatic view gives
the opportunity to create corresponding learning environments to each particular
GROUP 2 child development stage. The program should be grouped according to similar
1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE curriculums and developmental stages. In accord to this, each group of grades and
curriculums should have an environment specially designed to the needs of that stage
of child development. Each group has a set of ranges in physical and mental needs.
By associating the needs of development and curriculum, a classroom or learning
GROUP 1 environment can be designed to best fit the needs of the grade group (Fig. 2.3).
PRE-K KINDERGARTEN
In this thesis, preschool and kindergarten can be defined as one group. The
need for activity and imagination for children in this development stage defines a certain
Figure 2.3 Grades broken into development groups. type of learning environment. The design and scale for this age group is much different
from the other groups. The next overall group would be defined as a typical elementary
school, six through eleven year olds. Curriculums and environments are more structured
than the previous group but there is still a need to be active. In many elementary
schools there are addition separations. First and second grade are commonly grouped
together, and third, fourth and fifth are a separate group. The last group would be the
ages twelve through fourteen, the same as a typical middle school. This age is the start
of hypothetical and abstract thinking. The curriculum for this age is more intense and
students themselves become structured individuals. This grouping structure addresses
 21
mental and physical development and creates a structure for the layout of the physical
environment. This grouping of school design fits into the current education system,
leaving the traditional high school out of this thesis program.

Based on this grouping proposed above, each group will have a distinctive
curriculum, different learning types, and a corresponding physical environment. This
thesis will create a set of learning types based on the separation of age development
groups that will address the progress and future changes in technology. The learning
types will then influence the shape of each space to accommodate for the future of the
learning environment.

Figure 3.1 Framework for 21st Century Education
highlighting the skills of ICT and the
enrivnmental support system
22
Section 3: Information and Computer Technology in School Design
“When even conservative estimates maintain that the classroom of the present
where pupils are currently being taught has not changed in decades, is it then likely
that the form of today’s classroom is appropriate for the tasks it is supposed to fulfill in
modern society?”34
Information and computer technology (ICT) is being used throughout modern
society, and it is changing the way people work and live. People are constantly
connected to each other around the world through technology during most of their
waking hours. “It insinuates itself into every facet of our social, cultural, psychological,
and working environments.”35 The way schools are traditionally structured prohibits
this inevitable technology oriented lifestyle. ICT is adapted to the classroom rather than
reflecting our dedicated use of it today. Our school designs have not changed physically
to adapt to the changes that are currently happening outside the classroom. How do we
expect our children to meet the expectations of today and be the leaders of tomorrow
when they are learning in traditional environments built for a specific type of pedagogy
and curriculum from over a hundred years ago?
The desire for education change in our schools and classrooms is a common
view among educators in the United States. They want students to master the multi-
dimensional abilities that will be required to compete and lead a global economy. It
is seen that if we cannot adapt to these new changes, our children will be left behind.
An example of this aspiration is The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Fig. 3.1). Their
framework reflects the desires to develop skills including collaboration, innovation
and technology skills in conjunction with a supportive curriculum and environment.
34
Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati. Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces. Rotterdam: Sense,
2010. 20. Print.
35
Lippman, Peter C. Evidence-based Design of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Hoboken, NJ: J.
Wiley, 2010. 111. Print.
 23
Classrooms and schools of this framework should reflect and lead those changes by
RADIO creating an environment best suited for students to lead in the twenty first century
global economy.36

PROJECTOR
The Technology Used in The Past and Today

The traditional classroom environment and its teachers have been trying to
adapt to changes in technology for many decades (Fig. 3.2). In the early twentieth
century, film and radio were the initial technology additions to the classroom. They
TV
were both passive ways of teaching students. Sitting and watching a screen or listening
to someone speaking over a radio was no different than having a teacher teaching in
the room. In fact, it was worse because there was not an opportunity to interrupt and
ask questions, and the transmission may have been difficult to hear or understand.37
COMPUTER Televisions were the next addition to the classroom and they had many benefits. They
enabled students to see past the classroom walls and into the real world, but they teach
in the same passive way as the traditional classroom. The invention of the computer
created an active environment for one user and could connect users to information,
but the additions of computers and televisions to classrooms were used as accessories
I.W.B.
rather than active tools for learning. Even after the invention of the internet and its
establishment in schools, it is difficult find an active and collaborative environment that
doesn’t directly reflect the traditional and passive ways of teaching.

TABLET

36
“The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.” The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.p21.org/>
Figure 3.2 Evolution of I.C.T. in the classroom.
37
Lippman, Peter C. Evidence-based Design of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Hoboken, NJ: J.
Wiley, 2010. 102. Print.
 24
TEACHER Changing Factors

The reduction of the physical size of electronics, wireless technology, and the
ability for collaborative interaction are the changing factors of the twenty first century
classroom. They are driving a need for a new classroom design with ICT in schools.
Lightweight personal and portable electronics allow each person to have their own
device to use and connect to the larger system. The reduction of size and weight of
STUDENTS electronics has made technology friendlier and more portable. Electronics have become
small and light enough for children to use. In addition to small electronics, wireless
internet and connections between devices creates the capability for a more flexible and
informal learning environment. Small and portable electronics allow students to use
self-guided programs to become more independent learners. Instead of the reliance of
physically being connected to the teacher to learn, there is the chance to connect and
Figure 3.3 Traditional teaching methods
learn digitally and thus freeing students from the traditional classroom (Fig. 3.3, 3.4).
Wireless technology and the internet give classrooms, teachers, and individual students
the ability to access all the information on the web in an environment of their choosing.
“In the future, classrooms will include a rich technology layer that will help scaffold
complex patterns of activities and connect students to rich, collaborative learning
experiences.”38 Wireless technology gives classrooms the ability to learn and connect
to others from any point in the physical environment. This more flexible environment
allows for many different types of learning based on the individual students curriculum.
It can allow for a student who may want to learn with the computer at their own pace,
or it can allow for groups of students to share and collaborate; each student having the
internet at their individual disposal. Being connected digitally decreases the physical
dependence of tradition learning, and increases active opportunities for a diverse set
physical spaces.

38
Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati. Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces. Rotterdam: Sense,
Figure 3.4 Teaching with IWB and tablets (or laptops). 2010. 239. Print.

Figure 3.5 Interactive whiteboard in the classroom.
Figure 3.6 Tablet technology used in the classroom
25
Future ICT Devices That Will Change the Classroom Environment
Today ICT has advanced and adapted so that it is used in a more interactive way.
Many schools try to use ICT in an active way to excite students to increase involvement
and collaboration. Interactive white boards (IWB) are often found in today’s classrooms
(Fig. 3.5). “Whiteboard technology enables educators to create, customize, and
integrate text, images, quizzes, and test, Web, video, and audio content and encourages
students to interact with material projected on the white board. The results often
are more interactive, engaging, and also have the potential to accommodate different
learning styles.”39 The IWB allows students and teachers to connect and engage
physically around technology. It can also connect the students digitally to the active
environment that the IWB creates. Instead of one student coming up to the black
board, each student can connect digitally at the same time. All of this information could
then be accessed, organized, and discussed between students and teachers at a later
time because of its connection to the internet and other devices. The problem that
many classrooms are having is that the teacher is not trained or inventive with the IWB
to use it at its full potential. Its capabilities are reduced to the standard blackboard or
projector because of the limitations that the teacher has put on the technology. Once
teachers are familiar with the device, it opens up new possibilities. Although the IWB
is an evolved idea of the blackboard, its ability to connect and display digitally between
devices makes it a revolutionary idea that will make it a part of the future learning
environment. The physical form and orientation of the IWB may change in the future
to entire walls or tables, but the principle that the IWB brings to a classroom will take a
large role in the design of the new classroom environment and those spaces that expand
beyond it.
The two personal portable electronics that have shown promise in schools
today are the laptop computer and the tablet computer (Fig. 3.6). Laptops are similar
39
Schrum, Lynne, and Barbara B. Levin. Leading 21st Century Schools: Harnessing Technology for
Engagement and Achievement. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin, 2009. Print.
 26
to the desktop computers and usually require interaction with the device via mouse or
keyboard. The student or teacher is able to connect to the internet and other devices
through the laptop. The tablet is a lightweight computer device that closely resembles
a thin book. It is touch sensitive, unlike laptops, and can be held with one hand. Many
tablets come with covers that are also stands so that it can be placed upright like a
computer screen. The laptops are more conventional for typing because of the physical
keyboard unlike the touch screen keyboard on tablets. Both the laptop and tablet
are useful portable devices that can connect to other devices like the IWB. Laptops
computers, even at their lightest weight, are more difficult to use in an interactive way.
Once a laptop is opened, the student and it are more likely to sit in the same place like
a desktop. Most laptops today use the keyboard or mouse for control rather than an
interactive touch screen. This technology is harder to create collaborative environments
for multiple users.

The tablet is sometimes considered the natural evolution from laptops. The
tablet uses your finger or a stylus for interaction, unlike a laptop and a mouse, is has
direct connection to the interface that resembles reality. The tablet’s form encourages
more collaboration because multiple students can work together on one tablet where
it is difficult for multiple students to share one laptop. The screen can easily move to
angle any individual. The stylus can be passed around, and is easier to use than a mouse
from any angle. They lightweight nature and long battery life allow students to move
freely and share interactively. During the research of this thesis, Apple© released plans
to focus on replacing textbooks with their iPad© in conjunction with major school text
book companies (Fig. 3.7). Before this announcement, many schools had already been
experimenting with this tablet technology. It is very likely that the tablet design will
Figure 3.7 Apple’s iPad has established itself as the eventually take over traditional textbooks because of the tablet’s constantly updated
leader of education with tablets.
books, interactive e-books, user made books and content, and low cost in comparison
to buying multiple textbooks or buying new editions of books. “Educators laud the
iPad’s physical attributes, including its large touch screen and flat design, which allows

Figure 3.8 Connection and collaboration wirelessly
with other students and teacher outside of
school
27
students to maintain eye contact with their teachers. And students like its light weight,
which offers a relief from the heavy books that weigh down their backpacks.”40 The
exclusivity of the hardware and software for the tablet device is a battle that will be
fought between companies. It is significant to observe that whichever corporation is
able to monopolize on this opportunity, due incompatible operating systems, will have a
significant impact on learning and student’s dedication to certain brands. The tablet that
works and functions best for learning for the future will yield the best results.
The tablet is not just a marketing scheme to sell these devices. The Obama
Administration is pushing to get this technology into schools and replace textbooks.
Kimberly Hefling from the Associated Press writes that “Education Secretary Arne
Duncan and Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski …
challenged schools and companies to get digital textbooks in students’ hands within
five years … Karen Cator, director of the Education Department’s office of education
technology says ‘We’re not talking about the print-based textbook now being digital.
We’re talking about a much more robust and interactive and engaging environment
to support learning’.”41  If tablets are the best look into the future technology of the
classroom, it is a respectable one because the tablet design and support suggests
positive changes in the way teachers and students will interact and learn together (Fig.
3.8). These advances in technology will surely not be the last, but they give a good
indication on the direction in which the future classroom is headed. That direction is
one that uses tablet technology along with IWBs in a more collaborative and digitally
connected way. It allows for many diverse types of learning spaces and situations.
40
Hu, Winnie. “Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the IPad.” The New York Times. The New
York Times, 04 Jan. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.
html?pagewanted=all>.
41
Hefling, Kimberly. “Challenge to Schools: Embracing Digital Textbooks.” Seattlepi.com. Associated
Press, 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Challenge-to-schools-Embrac-
ing-digital-textbooks-2916164.php>
 28
Case Studies

Interactive white boards and the tablets are examples of hardware advances in
technology, but there are also software advances specifically targeting performance in
education. The Khan Academy, an online educational resource now funded by the Gates
Foundation, was started by a Salman Khan who was trying to help tutor his relatives
via the internet. He posted videos online to help them and others found them helpful.
Now The Khan Academy is a well-known teaching and tutoring video provider where
students can watch and replay lessons on their computer or wireless device. In addition,
the website includes a curricula that can map your progress and suggest videos and
problems that you are not proficient in yet. It also has an active community where
students can ask and answer questions below videos with links taking them to related
videos or assignments.42

The School of One is another example of software developed for education

(Fig. 3.9 - 3.11). The School of One is software, but also a full school structure. In 2009,
a pilot study called The School of One started and set out to rethink education with
technology and improve test scores. The grade range tested was from fourth grade to
ninth grade. Learning is done in large group instruction, small group instruction, group
collaboration, one on one, virtually, live remote tutoring, and individually. This enables
students to learn in a variety of formats and environments. Each student has his or her
own laptop. Assignments and lessons are done on laptops in diverse settings. A learning
algorithm determines what the student is good in and what needs work. Based on those
results, the student will come to school and be assigned certain lessons and assignments
Figure 3.9 School of One traditional classroom and
smart design classroom comparision
for the day. This gives each individual a unique learning schedule to do what best fits
their needs. The students and teachers can follow their progress with the “Skill Map”,

42
“Salman Khan: Let’s Use Video to Reinvent Education.” TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED Confer-
ences, LLC, Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_rein-
vent_education.html>.
 29

Figure 3.10 School of One diagram by the Figure 3.11 School of One room layouts
American Architectural Foundation
 30
and the student’s unique lessons and assignments are called a “Playlist”.43 This is a
modern view and solution to the idea that every child is unique. This relates back to
the early twentieth century idea of teaching The Whole Child, and Maria Montessori’s
concept that every child is unique.

The School of One pilot program also hired architects to design their learning
spaces based on the new curriculum and technologies. It consists of multiple learning
spaces that are flexible and fluid, but have the function to separate spaces. It gives
students learning, working, and collaborating spaces where they perform best. TV’s
are also permanently installed around the school to show where students are supposed
to go. This setup is not exactly the ideal for the classroom for the strong ideas in
curriculum, but it is a step in the right direction.

Learning Types and Development Groups with ICT

As schools begin using information and communication technology like the

interactive white board and tablets, the schools are being adapted to support the
technology integrated curriculum. Eventually the curriculum will adapt and evolve into
something that the traditional classroom may not be able to accommodate. The new
curriculum will fit the new capabilities of wireless personal technology devices. In
addition to the new curriculum, learning types and environments corresponding to
teaching methods and tasks will be designed to effectively use the space and technology.
As discussed before, the curriculum for a student is related to the development of a
child. A learning space for a first grader will look and function completely differently
than a space for a seventh or eighth grader. Based on the development stage and age
range, the classroom will match the needs for those students development.

Kindergarten children are hands-on active learners, and they learn through

43
“Skill Map and Playlist.” School of One – Concept. School of One. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://scho-
olofone.org/concept_keyfeatures.html>.
 31
play. Technology will not play as large of a role for them as it will for the older students.
Tablets may be used periodically in groups or individually to learn through games or
other programs. Interactive white boards maybe used during this stage in conjunction
with the tablet. It is somewhat controversial to introduce technology as a main tool at
such an early age, but through games, kindergartners can familiarize themselves with
the device and have fun and learn at the same time. The classroom space will most
likely not change much from a typical kindergarten classroom today.

The early grade school years, first, second, and third will have a different
curriculum than the kindergartners. It is still necessary to have a comfortable home-like
environment for this age range. Individual students or groups of students will be given
a tablet, or a similar personal electronic device, to use at specific times during the day
for certain parts of the curriculum. Children can follow along with certain assignments
and the teacher will be able to keep track of each student digitally and see how they are
doing. Interactive white boards and group learning could be a large part of this stage
and the next. While technology in the classroom will be increased during this age range,
additional configurations and spaces for the classroom will be needed.

The later grade school years, fourth and fifth grade, will have a similar
curriculum to the early grade school years. The difference will be that the students will
still to a have a more independent structured learning environment and the ability to
start working individually with technology. The physical learning environment will be
the same or similar to the early grade school years, but the curriculum will be different
and more technology oriented. This age range will prepare students to transfer into the
more structured framework of the middle school learning environment.

Middle school students are very different from the grade school children.
Traditionally students become more independent and self-organized. This is the stage
that Maria Montessori described as the construction of the adult. It is the start of a
structured learning environment with clear separations of subjects. Sixth through eighth
 32
WORKS BEST SHY, HATES GROUPS, LIKES SOCIAL, LEADER, graders will have their own tablet device that will be used as their main connection to
IN GROUPS MATH AND SCIENCE LOW READING LEVEL
their daily course schedule and lessons. Homework, assignments, and progress will all
TESTED AT A 10TH
GRADE READING be through the tablet device. Students will be able to take home these devices and
LEVEL BUT HAS SHORT
ATTENTION SPAN work outside of school time and connect to teachers and students to ask questions or
collaborate. The middle school curriculum and environment will be most different from
HAS ISSUES SEEING their traditional equivalent of today.
DIGITAL SCREENS,
NEEDS INDIVIDUAL
ASSISTANCE The Role of the Teacher
READS THE NEW
YORK TIMES AND The role of the teacher traditionally was to teach a classroom full of students.
KNOWS THE FIRST 50
DECIMALS OF π. Teaching a class is different than teaching a student. In a class, the teacher needs
BORED OUT OF HIS
MIND.
to teach a single way to meet the understanding of majority of the students. Some
Figure 3.12 Students have unique needs
students will be advanced and become bored, and others may struggle and need outside
help (Fig. 3.12). In this sense, when the teacher teaches class the probability that every
child is learning to their needs is unlikely. Technology that is ‘smart’ like the adaptive
algorithm lessons (Fig. 3.13), assignments, and schedules seen in the Khan Academy and
The School of One allows each student to learn in the way that fits them best. This new
way of teaching allows students to discover by themselves or collaborate with others.
For example, a teacher may tell students that they will be having a class lesson about
DNA after lunch. The teacher can tell students to get together in small groups for ten
minutes before lunch and research what they can online or in their e-books. After lunch
the teacher may start off the lecture by asking “What is DNA, or where can I find it?”
Students and groups may then chime in with different answers from what they found,
or post digitally from their tablet to the IWB. Students in this situation will have a broad
understanding of what they will be learning next and already be actively involved.

The role of the teacher is still the same, but the method in which she or he
teaches will change. The teacher may still teach the entire class at one time, but the
teacher’s position will also be a group facilitator and personal tutor. The teacher of
Figure 3.13 Khan Academy Learning Tree Algorithm the future classroom will be more personal in the same way technology makes lessons

Figure 3.14 EdLab by Edison Schools
Figure 3.15 EdLab prototype
33
and assignments individually unique. Some teachers are frightened that the teacher
will be replaced, but it is widely understood that technology will not replace the
teacher because it is just a tool. Harri Skog says during The New York Times Schools for
Tomorrow discussion, “Technology will not replace teachers and will not put them out of
work. You can’t replace the human collaboration.”44
Spaces Created for ICT
“Many architects are interested in buildings as monumental objects … this
simplification and commodity approach to designing large schools is incompatible with
the spatial complexity required for modern learning environments.”45
It is important not to get carried away with grand visions of technology, and
get drawn into a utopian idea of how things will work in the “future.” Forcing a specific
technology to work a certain way against humanistic intentions will not work. The EdLab
by Edison Schools (Fig. 3.14 - 3.15) is an example of an environment creates strictly
around technology. This open plan environment cuts off all visual connection to the
outside environment to eliminate distractions. The classroom resembles a petri dish
while students learn at stations with laptops and headphones. The teacher also controls
the lighting of the space to simulate changes in work or exterior settings. While this
may work for certain assignments and lessons, Tom Schuck, a teacher says, “to be in it
all day would be a mistake.” The role of teachers dramatically changes in this contained
environment and students are suppressed into learning in what some teachers describe
as a “cookie cutter” approach to curriculum. 46
The ICT previously mentioned, the tablet and IWB, have both been used and
44
The New York Times Company. “Schools For Tomorrow: Bringing Technology into the Class-
room.” The New York Times SFTM White Paper (2011). 3. Print.
45
Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati. Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces. Rotterdam: Sense,
2010. 20. 59. Print.
46
Ward, Jacob. “Too Cool for A School.” Architecture 90.2 (2001): 39-42. Print.
 34
tested in learning environments with success and support. We need to take “… a
relatively grounded approach to thinking about the design of schools for the future,
an approach that moves away from ‘grand visions’. Whereas we understand the ways
in which new information and communication technologies potentially change the
relationship between concrete and virtual spaces for learning, we also argue that more
attention should be paid to the design on physical space when building schools for the
future.”47 The goal is not to create an environment where this technology is specifically
integrated into the learning environment. The goal is to design spaces that best facilitate
the functions of the new technology, but not to make the same mistake of creating an
overly broad, open, and flexible space like the open classrooms of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
A balance between technology, human interaction, and development needs to be
desired to create these successful spaces.

“[T]he notion that learning must occur with a defined setting such as a school
‘classroom’ is now being challenged and may become increasingly redundant.”48 The
need to provide dark spaces for computer rooms is unnecessary today. “ICTs should
be designed to be part of an almost invisible infrastructure of a school.”49 Spaces can
be used for multiple functions due to wireless technology, but the spaces need to be
designed for the teaching and learning methods that will be occurring in that space
along with the number of students. Traditional classroom settings where there are many
students in one room with one teacher will not be abandoned completely, but that room
should also be flexible to be used for other functions. The need to be active instead of
passive throughout the day will also shape these different spaces, so adjacent spaces
should also be designed for small collaborative groups.
47
Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati. Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces. Rotterdam: Sense,
2010. 20. 57. Print.
48
John, Peter D, and Steve Wheeler. The Digital Classroom: Harnessing Technology for the Future of
Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge, 2008. 93. Print.
49
Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati. Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces. Rotterdam: Sense,
2010. 20. 57. Print.
 36
Section 4: Sustainable Technology and a Healthy School Environment

In addition to communication and information technology, sustainable

technology has proven to be incredibly important to the learning environment for
children. A sustainable school makes for a healthier environment and can lead to
increased productivity and less sick days. By teaching and learning in an environmentally
healthier environment, students will develop the habits of sustainability that will carry
on later into their life. Benefits of a sustainable school include higher test scores, lower
operating costs, increased student attendance, enhanced teacher performance and
satisfaction, increased building life, and lower environmental impacts.

“Daylighting is one of the best investments you can make in the design of a
learning environment.”51 Some schools used up to 26% of their energy to artificially
illuminate schools during the middle of the day.52 By combining controlling daylight,
electric loads can be dramatically reduced. Students are higher in attendance and have
better test scores when they have access to daylight.53 Research by Heschong Mahone
Group has shown that classrooms in Washington state that have adequate daylight
produce students that have 7% to 18% higher test scores than students with the least
daylight.54 Teachers and students perform better when a connection to the outdoor
environment can be established (Fig. 4.2). An issue that may arise with the combination
Figure 4.1 Lighting in building energy use percentage
of daylit spaces and electronics screens is the ability to see the screen clearly. It can
be difficult to read the screen if there is a reflection on the screen, but this should not
sacrifice a daylight space from being used with technology. Tablet devices are easy to
51
Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric C. Freed. Sustainable School Architecture: Design for Primary and Secondary
Schools. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. 85. Print.
52
Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric C. Freed. Sustainable School Architecture: Design for Primary and Secondary
Schools. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. 12. Print.
53
Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric C. Freed. Sustainable School Architecture: Design for Primary and Secondary
Schools. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. 83. Print.
54
Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric C. Freed. Sustainable School Architecture: Design for Primary and Secondary
Schools. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. 3. Print.
 37

Figure 4.2 Daylighting linked to student performance.

 38
adjust by the user to a more preferable angle if the interior allows for that flexibility.
IWB can be used in daylit spaces. Direct sun is not desirable on the devices, but direct
sun is also not desired in the building. Blackout shades or darker rooms can be designed
so that comfort with the technology can be achieved based on the user’s desire, but a
lighting synthetic lighting solution like the EdLab classroom is a poor choice for a large
environment.

Schools that do not address learning environments as sustainable environments

create negative settings for students to endure and can result in draining working
conditions for teachers. Buildings that do not connect to the outdoor and daylight
changes disrupt an individual’s circadian rhythm, or biological clock. Our health can
be related to the circadian rhythm, and a building that allows us to constantly connect
to the diurnal cycle is a healthier environment. Since children spend so much time in
schools and the average person spends about 90% of their life indoors, it is important
that children grow up with sustainable and healthy expectations for buildings. If
students and teachers are accustomed to poor quality environment conditions,
they will become stoic to their environment. “Environmental stoicism” and “place
machismo”, defined by Michael Benedikt, both relate to the acceptance of poor indoor
environments. “Whereas stoicism advises calm acceptance of what cannot be improved,
machismo—less a philosophy than an attitude—recommends pride in the grim embrace
of harsh realities.”55 It is important to understand the need for a sustainable and healthy
environment because places designed specifically for TV’s and other electronics devices
are sometimes the worst offenders of this “place machismo”.

CHPS (Collaborative for High Performance Schools), LEED (Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design) for Schools, and WSSP (Washington Sustainable School
Protocol) are criteria checklists and rating systems that are currently helping architects
design better sustainable schools. CHPS was developed before LEED for schools and it
55
Benedikt, Michael. “Environmental Stoicism and Place Machismo.” Harvard Design Magazine Win-
ter/Spring.16 (2002): 1. Print.
 40
Section 5: Urban Schools

Figure 5.2 Exterior view of Leutshenbach School in
Zurich
Schools are often built in suburban areas and span long distances across the
land. The locations of these schools are often hard to get to by walking or biking. They
typically are one or two stories tall, and circulation relies on long walks between wings
or around courtyards. The footprint and area of a suburban school uses much more land
and has a bigger impact on the ecosystem. Vertical schools are typically in urban infill
areas and don’t have large footprints. They rely on stairs and elevators for circulation,
but access to light and the exterior is easy due to the smaller floor plate. Visual
connection between floors for interaction is important for a sense of community. A
diversified floor to floor height also puts emphasis a more communal and special spaces.

An example of a modern vertical school is the Leutshenbach School in Zurich,

Switzerland (Fig. 5.1, 5.2). It is a six story elementary school. Because of its smaller
site, it creates a small footprint to open up area around the building for play. Stairs and
common spaces connect each floor and create transparency and community between
floor levels. The gymnasium is placed at the top of the building and has maximum
daylight and views to the surrounding areas. This school does a good job at using its
verticality to its advantage by connecting to the context and providing outside space.
Even though the building has multiple levels, the spaces seem to flow together through
the floor plates.57

Building a school in an urban setting reflects the “smart growth” patterns that
are happening in Seattle. More people are moving to urban and suburban areas around
cities. “King County has grown by about 330,000 residents, or 21%, since 1994… King
Figure 5.2 Leutshenbach School interior common County is forecasted to grow by an additional 320,000 persons, or 16% by 2030.”58
space
57
Lentz, Linda. “Leutschenbach School: Christian Kerez.” Architecture Record Jan. 2012: 110-115
Print.
58
USA. King County. Department of Development & Environmental Services. King County Compre-
hensive Plan. 2012 ed. Seattle: King County, 2011. Print.
 41
Sprawling outwards from downtown Seattle has created long commutes to work and the
idea of moving back to the city has become appealing to many people. As more people
begin to move back, the urban infrastructure including schools needs to accommodate
this new smart growth.

During the completion of this thesis, the summer of 2012, there has become
great interest in the topic of a establishing a “downtown school”. The growing
population of students in the current public school system has sparked interest from
the Downtown Seattle Association. The D.S.A. published a downtown school feasibility
study that evaluates the needs for a downtown school and the populations’ projections
for current schools. Mayor McGuinn also spoke in support for a school in South Lake
Union along with a proposal to rezone the height-limiting district. According the D.S.A.
study, “Downtown Seattle has been the fastest growing neighborhood in Seattle for
more than two decades. This trend is projected to continue with Downtown set to
absorb 60 percent of future population growth within the City of Seattle over the next
12 years. The largest growth in student enrollment between 2007 and 2011 occurred
in South Lake Union, where enrollment grew by more than 65 percent.” “The Moderate
Growth Scenario projects that the Downtown K-8 population will increase by more than
50 percent to 571 students in 2020.”59

John Hays Elementary School is overcrowded with students from the growing
downtown population (Fig. 5.3). According to the study, John Hay will see an increase
of 200 to 300 students alone from the downtown area by the year 2020. If a school is
built, it will draw more people those currently working downtown to live there as well.
The increase of the downtown population is creating a denser and safer downtown. A
school requires safety for the children, but it is also a promoter for an increase in safety
and involvement of the community and surrounding area. An increase of residential
development is a sign of the desire to move closer to the heart of Seattle (Fig. 5.4 - 5.7).
Figure 5.3 Changes in Downtown Enrollment by
Attendance Area Schools (2007-2011)
Downtown Seattle Association. Downtown School Feasibility Study. June 20. 2012. Print.
59
 42

Figure 5.4 Total Downtown Population Census Tract Figure 5.5 Downtown Residential Construction
(1990-2010) Source: US Census Bureau Source: Downtown Seattle Association
 44
Locating a school in an urban area has many opportunities and challenges. With
a location like Seattle, there are many chances to exchange and share spaces within the
context and community. By engaging with the community, spaces in the school can be
used after school hours and spaces out in the community can be used by the school.
The Expeditionary Learning School is an example of putting knowledge and skills to work
by engaging learning with the surrounding context and community. Doing real tangible
projects with the community gives students the feeling of responsibility for their work,
as well as sense of purpose and ownership.60 By being involved in the community, it
brings the community in to support the school. Sharing sports fields and community
spaces along with other functions provides a mutual positive relationship between the
school and the community.

60
“Expeditionary Learning.” Expeditionary Learning. Outward Bound. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://
elschools.org/>.
 45
Methodology

Part 1. Site and Program

Site and Surrounding Context

The manifestation of the future learning environment is an urban K-8 school

for the Seattle Public School system. In the process of selecting a site for this project
many factors have been considered. The decision to locate the school in an area that
fits the criteria for a dense urban school in a growing location that could possible serve
a viable community of Seattle (Fig. 6.1, 6.2) in the future. Locating downtown, unlike
somewhere further away puts the building in a context that is restricted to the urban
Figure 6.1 Seattle, WA
grid, but free to a taller height limit. There is also not a public school located in the
downtown area, even though living in the downtown area has become appealing again.
A school in close proximity to downtown can take advantage of the city and its growing
community as an outside resource.

South Lake Union (sometimes referred to as the Cascade District) was chosen
because it is central to the new development and already has many community
resources for the school to connect. South Lake Union is north of downtown in an
area that is currently being developed heavily by a developer called Vulcan Real Estate
owned by Paul Allen of Microsoft. The plan for South Lake Union is to increase density
in the area and grow upwards, not outwards. South Lake Union is a growing community
full of new businesses and new young residents. It is also likely to share it resources
like athletic fields at the Seattle Center. It is the home of an Amazon Campus and UW
Medical, along with other business drawn to the newly developed area. Since this
project is dealing with the future of a learning environment and new technologies, it is
more appropriate that the school be located in this area, where the community may be
very supportive of this new technological related school. Parents will be more inclined
Figure 6.2 South Lake Union, Seattle
to live and work in this area if the school gives their children an education they support.
 46
Currently students that live in this area go to John Hay Elementary School in
Queen Anne. The closest magnet school is Queen Anne Elementary School. Students in
Eastlake also do not have a school in their area and must go to Montlake Elementary or
Lowel Elementary in Capitol Hill. A school in South Lake Union could draw students from
Eastlake as well as those in South Lake Union and Downtown (Fig. 6.3). This school could
also retain students till high school, so traveling to McClure Middle School in Queen
Anne would not be necessary. The area works well with projected growth trends and
provides a new type of context in which children can learn.

Deciding on a specific site for the school is based upon zoning, surrounding
buildings, resource proximity, current growth, likely growth patterns, vehicular traffic,
and physical obstacles and boundaries. Like downtown, South Lake Union is has great
topography changes, although it is much more manageable thanks to the Denny re-
grade. The eastern portion of South Lake Union is at the edge of The Seattle Center;
home of the Space Needle, Key Arena, and The Pacific Science Center. The new Gates
Foundation building and chain hotels are also in this area. The Seattle Center has its
own master plan for the next 50 years, but it is not design in conjunction with Vulcan
and the rest of South Lake Union. Connecting to this area is appealing for a school, but
the challenges outweigh the benefits. There is a lot of traffic, a lack of crosswalks, major
obstacles like streets, stairs, and tunnels; the location is not central for most housing in
South Lake Union. Connecting to the Seattle Center by transit or bus will be the most
viable solution for the school

The two most appealing sites are north of Denny Park, and on the northwest
corner of Denny Way and Fairview Ave. Both sites are relatively central to the area, and
are in growing areas. The Denny Park site is very close to two parks and has unblocked
access to sunlight from the south. The drawbacks to this are that there is existing church
there already, and it sits between two unfriendly pedestrian streets that are heavily
traveled by fast moving vehicles. If a school were to put in this area, restructuring of
 Middle and Elementary School ADOPTED 20091118
MAP ID #002 47
Attendance Areas Last Update: Feb 2012

Figure 6.3 Seattle Public School District Map for

NE 150TH ST

MERIDIAN AVE N

JU
15TH AVE NE

AN
N 145TH ST NE 145TH ST

ITA
Elementary and Middle School

D
30TH AVE NE

88TH AVE
RN
RAMP

84TH AVE NE
GREENWOOD AVE N
NE 137TH ST

NE
Broadview-Thomson K-8 NE 141ST ST

Olympic Hills

90TH AVE NE
n

1ST AVE NE
N 130TH ST
N 128TH ST n

RAMP

90TH AVE NE
N 125TH ST

AURORA AVE N
NE 125TH ST NE 125TH ST
NE 132ND ST

Northgate

DAYTON AVE N
Puget
Sound n Pinehurst K-8
n

NE
MERIDIAN AVE N
Jane Addams K-8
N 115TH ST

T PL

HO
D ST

LM
RAMP 1S
12 3R

Viewlands
NE

ES
NE NORTHGATE WAY

n John Rogers
NE 110TH ST

PO
24TH

IN
n

RAMP

T
DR
N 105TH ST

AVE NE

NE
NE

PL
R

SAND POINT WAY NE

D

TH
ITA
NW 100TH ST AN

76
Olympic View
JU
NE
Sacajawea
North Beach Whitman n n
n §
¦
¨
NE 95TH ST
N 92ND ST
5 NE 92ND ST
n

RAVE
N 90TH ST

8TH AVE NW

ROOSEVELT WAY NE
Wedgwood

NN
A AV
5TH AVE NE
RAMP

E
Loyal Heights Greenwood Bagley n

E NE
AY
NW

W
Y
n Thornton Creek K-5
NW 80TH ST

IT
SEAVIEW AVE
n

20TH AVE NE
n

KE
Eckstein

LA
N

n Whittier n
VE
AA

WAVE
ON
WIN
n View Ridge
MP NE 75TH ST
RA

RLY
35TH AVE NE
Salmon Bay K-8 Green n

WAY
Green Lake
NE 70TH ST

Adams n Lake

36TH AVE NW
NW 65TH ST
n
Sand Point
NE 65TH ST
NE 65TH ST
n

24TH AVE NW
Bryant

32ND AVE NW
West Woodland

25TH AVE NE
n
n McDonald n

15TH AVE NW
NW MARKET ST H ST
N 56T

LE

40TH AVE NE
SH
n NE 55TH ST

PHINNEY AVE N
AR O L

14TH AVE NW
IL

3RD AVE NW
Y

17TH AVE NE

20TH AVE NE
S
W

AV AV

47TH AVE NE
CO

E
MM N 50TH ST

E
NE 50TH ST

NW NW
OD

Laurelhurst
O RE

E
W AY

UN
Hamilton John Stanford Int'l

IO
n

N
NE 45TH ST

BA
Lawton

Y
B. F. Day

PL
30TH AVE
NE 41ST ST

NE
n W
n

E
N

EN
IC N 40TH ST NE 40TH ST

STONE WAY N
34TH AVE W

GIL
W EMERSON ST PL K
ER
n

E AV
OR NW 39TH ST

M
SO
M AN
UW

FREMONT AVE N
AN
W N

AK
NE

22ND AVE W

AY
S

AV
T

STL
PA

W
C

EW
IF

EA
11TH AVE W
IC

AK
W DRAVUS ST N 35TH ST
N 34T ST

HL
W DRAVUS ST H ST

RT

HUNTS POINT RD
NO
W FLORENTIA ST

Catharine Blaine K-8

N
TOPS K-8 RAMP

Coe

6T
n

7TH AVE W
n Montlake

10TH AVE W

H
EW
M

AV
AG
SR 520

28TH AVE W
n

E
W MC GRAW ST

E AV
N
n
¬
«
RAMP

N
O
BO SR 520

L IA
520

YK
n Queen Anne K-5
BOSTON ST YE

BL
R

ND
n AV

E
VD

N
E

OR

R
E

W
McGilvra

D
Hay

TH

TS
RAMP

McClure n

IN
MAGNOLIA BR

PO
Stevens n

E
W GALER ST

EVERGREEN POINT RD
D
BLV
TAYLOR AVE N
n NE 24TH ST

10TH AVE E
VIE
W

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

DEXTER AVE N
OLY

KE
W MP
M IC

LA
2ND AVE W
ER PL ST
Lowell
CE

EASTLAKE AVE E
R N

BELLEVUE AVE E
O

84TH AVE NE
PL E ROY ST IS

92ND AVE NE
MERCER ST

WESTLAKE AVE N
AD

FAIRVIEW AVE N

23RD AVE E
n

EL
M

BROADWAY E
E

LIO
n

32ND AVE E
12TH AVE E
Attendance Area Elementary Schools

15TH AVE 15TH AVE E

19TH AVE E
ST
TT

AD
NE 14TH ST

AV

O
BR
NE 12TH ST

E
n

W
Attendance Area Middle Schools DENNY WAY

RAMP
EL
LIO 7T NE 10TH ST
H

19TH AVE
TT 4T AV

ST
n AV 2N H E AY NE 8TH ST

M L KING JR WAY
T
W
Option Schools E D AV E PINE ST OVERLAKE DR W

AR
AV E IVE

Madrona K-8

E
OL

EW
E E PIKE ST
AL

AKE DR
W ST

ST
ES

14TH AVE
AS E E UNION ST
Elementary School Attendance Areas
KA TE PIN ST Lake
n

BO
E

BROADWAY
N R
W N PIK T
Washington

34TH AVE
RE

OV ERL
AY AV S

23RD AVE
E N

N
IO
UN

AV
Middle School Attendance Areas

5T
E CHERRY ST

E
3R

H
1S

9T
D

AV
TA
E JEFFERSON ST

H
AV

E
6T

AV
VE
Out of District Elliott

12TH AVE
H

E
Leschi

AV
ST
Bay
MP S
Gatzert

E
RA ME
JA YESLER WAY
Parks n
n

2ND AVE S
ALASKAN WAY S
S JACKSON ST
Industrial Areas & UW
n Washington

RAM

20TH AVE S
S DEARBORN ST

WAY
N
Thurgood Marshall

M
S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

ER
S JUDKINS

MP

CER
ST

CE
RA
S ATLANTIC ST
n

R
M ER
RAMP

W
HA
I-90 FRWY

§
I-90 FRWY

AY
¦
¨

S
SW
RAMP

Beacon Hill Int'l

RB
SE 24TH ST RA

AVE

W
MP

OR
E
90

AV

76TH AVE SE
SI DE
AV
KI

80TH AVE SE
AL
A ST

E
RID
n

SW
SW FLO

LAKE

78TH AVE SE
31ST AVE S
17TH AVE S

RAI
Lafayette

NIE
16TH AVE SW
Alki

S
SR 99

R AV
n

5TH AVE S
6TH AVE

RAMP

ES
49TH AVE SW
n

23RD AVE S
SW ADMIRAL WAY

Madison
SE 36TH ST

1ST AVE S
Kimball

15TH AVE S
RAMP
n n n n John Muir
SE 40TH ST

SW AVALON WAY
WEST SEATTLE BR I-5 FRWY S SPOKANE ST

CALIFORNIA AVE SW
Schmitz Park S

Pathfinder K-8

RAMP

38TH AVE S
IN

Hawthorne
DU
ST
RIA
SW GENESEE ST LW
AY
n
n n S GENESEE ST

DELRIDGE WAY SW

50TH AVE S
Mercer

21ST AVE SW
SW ALASKA ST

Maple
BE

S ALASKA ST

FAUNTLEROY WAY SW
49TH AVE SW

SW
AC

AY
HD

S HUDSON ST
n
E
R SW

IN

Orca K-8
SK

Dearborn Park
ER

PL
S LUCILE ST S LUCILE ST
n 53RD
48TH AVE SW

SE

6TH AVE S
35TH AVE SW
K-5 STEM at Boren

4TH AVE S
S ORCAS ST n

RA

ISLAND CREST WAY

SW

MP
IF

E MERCER WAY
BEACON
Aki Kurose Graham Hill
T
AV
SW GRAHAM ST PL

§
E

¦
¨
O

S
ST BR S

AVE
AL
n
IG AN S GRAHAM ST

West Seattle Elementary 5

CH S

AVE S
S MI
n

ON
SR 99 RAM

RA
S
CORS

AVE
n

MP
Sanislo

AIR
n n MLK, Jr

PO
SE 68TH ST

84TH AVE SE
ELLIS

SE
n

RT

70
2ND AVE SW
S MYRTLE ST

W
Gatewood

TH
AY
SE 72ND ST

PL
S
S OTHELLO ST

RAMP
ST
S WEBSTER
Denny Int'l
SW HOLDEN ST SW HOLDEN ST S HOLDEN ST

n S KENYON ST
Van Asselt at AAA Wing Luke
n

SR
Highland Park
SW THISTLE ST

99
n
Dunlap

7TH AVE S
SW TRENTON ST
n Concord S CLOVERDALE ST

SW HENDERSON ST
n n
n South Shore PK-8
SW

SW BARTON ST

EA
AVE SW

³
DR S
Roxhill
RAMP
PL

ST
16TH AVE SW

MYER
N

RAMP
O

MAR

EEK
LS

n
O
45TH

SW

SW ROXBURY ST RA

CARK
G IN
S 96TH ST M

Emerson
AY S

AL
S ROXBURY ST
SR

WAY
SW 100TH ST
50 9 SR

R
Arbor Heights

EN
51ST AVE S

62ND AVE S
TO
N

64TH AVE S
I-5

AV
50 9

FR

E
S
SW 106TH ST

WY
26TH AVE SW

S RY

RAMP
SW 107TH ST

VD
SW 108TH ST S 108TH ST S BOEING RD AN
WAY

L BL
6TH AVE S

S BANGOR ST

IO NA
S 112TH ST

RNAT

MA
S 115TH
Rainier View
INTE

R
ST

84TH AVE S
TIN
AM

SW 116TH ST S 116TH ST BE
S 116TH ST
1ST AVE S

AC
BA

4TH AVE SW

LU
ILA
8TH AVE S

O
n
UM

87TH AVE S
78TH AVE S
TH
0 1 2 RAMP SR N
TUKW

59 9 AV

ER
BL

68TH AVE S
Miles S 120TH ST S
VD

KIN
42ND AVE S
SW

RAMP

G
JR
SR 599

W
AY
S
The names referenced on this map are not intended to reflect the official name of any school building. They are instead intended to ensure better public understanding based upon familiar reference, particularly in situations where program and school building names differ. The information included on this map has been compiled by Seattle
Public Schools staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Seattle Public Schools makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. Seattle Public Schools shall
not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited. (Enrollment Planning) 20120222_1236.
 48

CENTER FOR WOODEN BOATS

SOUTH LAKE UNION PARK MOHAI

KCTS PUBLIC T.V. U.W MEDICINE

GATE’S FOUNDATION
MEMORIAL STADIUM

CHIHULLY GARDENS E.M.P.

CHILDREN’S THEATER
PACIFIC SCIENCE CENTER
DENNY PARK SCHOOL SITE

ELLIOT BAY TRAIL CAPITOL HILL

CAL ANDERSON PARK

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK

PARAMOUNT THEATER

WASHINGTON STATE
CONVENTION CENTER
SEATTLE AQUARIUM

PIKE PLACE MARKET

BENAROYA HALL N

SEATTLE ART MUSEUM

DESTINATION

ROUTE TO DESTINATION

Figure 6.4 Seattle Context and Adjacencies

 49

REBUILDING TOGETHER

HARBOR VIEW AMAZON CASCADIA P-PATCH

MEDICAL CENTER AND PLAYGROUND

SEATTLE TIMES NBBJ

AMAZON

JOHN ST.

13 COINS
RESTAURANT

BOREN AVE.

FAIRVIEW AVE.
DENNY PARK SCHOOL
PLAY FIELD AND SEATTLE TIMES MIRABELLA
DISCOVERY CENTER
SITE SENIOR LIVING

KEXP

DENNY WAY

CORNISH COLLEGE

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY

TALKING BOOK &

BRAILLE LIBRARY
N
SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT

BUS STOP AND DIRECTION

Figure 6.5 Site and immediate adjacent context.
(Walkable) S.L.U. STREETCAR STOP

S.L.U. STREETCAR STOP

DESTINATION
 321.66 0090
THOMA S ST G
.
!

33
N88^32'53"W 321.60 120 16 120
N88^32'41"W AO 49885

G
.
! G
.
! 120

N0^52'36"E

30
392.10 N88^32'41"W

14.25
THOMAS ST
SC10 p24
) 12 14.25

33
12 120(P) 2.95
16 120(P)
108
5 5 120(P) 16 120
SC10 p24 AO 49885 N0^52'36"E 315.79 N89^06'06"W
18 113 120 16 N0^59'27"E

30
115 157.10
12
136
60

12.18
305.28 21

60
1

60
12

60
0300 1 120 16

60
80 40 120

AO 122873

60
12 234 120

36
0005
967 1

60
12

60
224 1

60
0245

F A I R V I E W
60

60 11
0295 2 230

60
11

60
2

60
11

60
0006

NOO^54'58"E

84
VO 90116
106 2 11

60
18

60
50
2

60
75 0350

411.96N0^54'58"E
10
60

ADD
60

222 3
N1^27'11"E

N1^25'53"E
219

60
10

60
N1^25'47"E
3

NORTH
426.28

200

IC-85

60

426.25

60
0290 DRR 10

426.29
0255 0380 DRR 3

VO 89750

N0^53'27"E
10

IC-85
97

60
DRR

60

F O R
50
3
CO 12023

100
30

60
CO 12023

360.09

417.27
11 0

393
CO 43560
CO 43560
60

9 EQD
60

4 9

60

60
4
2
30

60
9

60

411.96
BOREN AV N
X
W 4

60
9

60
DLC

70
4

60
222
60

8 5
60

8 1120

60

DENNYS
60
202 5 0015

60
8

60
0525
0275
Seattle Times

SC10 p30
0370 5 8

60
CO 51975

60
5

60
DT
7 201
Building7
60

6
60

7
60

60
6

E LINE
!G
18 0265

60

60
12 .
!
12
106 115

G
. 120(P) 16 120(P) 5
G
.
! 6

15.3
5
7
G
120(P) 16 33 33

60
120
.
! 6

60
120 16 308.25

60
21
321.84
JOHN ST G
.
!

33
16
VO 115
84355 321.59 VO 118365 AO 121088
120 120
G
.
!

33
N88^32'44"W 120
395.95 (Esmt Dedication)
N88^33'06"W

N0^57'14"E

30
8.17
JOHN ST

8.17
SC10 p27 N88-33-10W

33
12 VO 118365 N0^57'14"E 2.81 180.07

33
12 N88-32-44W 16 AO 121088 315.98 N89^05'07"W
105.92 120(P) SC10 p27
120(P) 16 120
N1^18
'19 "E N89^06'28"W

60(P) 2.85 30
18 115 50 50 51.88 DO 37648
60

128
21 DO 37650
1 208.82
60

12
60

2.78

2.82
120

2.71
16 120
975 124 1

60
120

AO 121088
153

2 3

HOMESTE AD ASSN
1
CO 43560

(Esmt Dedication)
0305 0055 1
GANGLOFF' S
12
N1^25'24"E

60(P)
1
ADD

SUPPL PLAT OF
120

90
60

WESTL AKE AV N

2
60

11 116
60

2
361.22

Rollin Street

60

VO 118365

N0^54'45"E
N1^26'23"E

0005
2 11

60

60
N1-26-25E
2
123

N0^53'22"E
FAIRVIEW
N0^54'45"E

FAIRVIEW AV N
(Condo)

210
SM-125
5T H

TERRY AV N

152.9
AO 122743
60

VOL 260-01 19 DRR 3

361.23

10

FAIRVIEW AV N
60

VO 54471
60

98 3

VO 113094
DT

60
SM-125
0068

60
427.41

MINOR AV N
TO THE
3

90
0310

60
10
CITY
CO 43560

FGQ
CO 12023
CO 12023

FGQ 3
427.22

739800 99 111 EQE

N 01-25-53 E

419.24
1000
60

153.44
4
427.18

1
N 01-25-24 E

9
CF3002245
60

AMENDING
60

4
60

AO 121088

60
0010

419.24
4

60
9
115
5
4

419.05
153.97
50 55

OF
SC10 p31
60

1100
SEAT TL E
5

VO 113242
60

964
VO 118365
SC10 p33

0100 5
SC10 p32

CO 51975

60
8

168
0320 8 5

138
120

7 6 5 0025
120

120

120

120

6 7 8
60

SC10 p30
VOL 3 -50
60

60(P)
18 0065 6 7
G
.
!
12
4.82
33 33
G
.
!
12 N88-32-35W 105.86 16 120
G
.
! 33 33 5 60(P) 60 16
251

G
.
! 93.7 7
12 156.76 6
G
60 60 33 33 30 120 16
.
!

12
50 120
N88^14'26" W AO 115069 AO 113094
G 30

12
.
!

12
33 AO 113094 AO 113094

12
272.26 30 120
49.45 28.93

N88^51'20"W
321.58 N88^32'30"W
DENNY WY
9.92 N88^32'35"W

33
121.19

33
N88^36'17"W
DENNY WY
N88^07'42"W N88^30'43"W
N88^35'47"W
249.76 N88^32'12"W 99.56 180.12
20 N4 18 213.88
2" 7

45 N88^36'43"W
W

N88^35'57"W

2.70
8.96
'2 .8

E
33
45 .29 191.57 2^ .9 N88^35'33"W

33

2"
R=

33
W ESTL A K E

21 3
40 21

14 1
BDY 4 16

'5
2^ .2
34

11
SC9 p28

CO 21766
33

33
CO 7733

'0
CO 773

38 21

N4 65
5"
136.14 33

33
7^
214 .47 N6^

33

33
33

E 54

242.96 N0^53'50"E
N4

14
BDY 5
BO
DMC
CO 51975
TE 2022
6.
16
3

03
3 VO
53 6
BDY 1000 12 33 5
0

RR RE

33
60
2245
12

242.96 N0^53'50"E
45 94
4 3

0
153 .17

94 34
39 1420
70 H E I R S

12
38
Y N

118.57
34 60 VO
OF
2 9. 60 33
46' 37" W

9.

CO 21766
9. 66
2014 G
0
16

.
!
AV
31
AV
12

14
2

240/290-400
14757
W 92

E
60 8

MI

4"
2 BDY2230
E

N4 N4
3
)

60
5"
do

'1
35
7^ 7^
ST
40

60

NO
AV

'1

.3
on

17
42 42
1

60
1 53
8
3-2

42
17

Figure 6.6 Seattle zoning map for South Lake8 Union.

(C

16

2^
'0 V '0 21
22

a 33 5.
2^

R
16
0

RA

9" c 7"

0
N4
50

ST
L

12

12
60

riangle
88
VO

BDY 33
C b

iangle Urban
N4

AVDF
W O y W
4

60
0-4

47 C o

2ND

CO 21766
C 60
7
40
25

1
NO

O 60 39
45 2 Co

IA
1485
L

77
VO

N4
87

(1 m
1480
*Old

18
17.99 33 92 m

G 7^
1.

IN
LE

45 4)
76

.
!

2.
(1
N4 44 41
E

6-47-56W

0
60
32

16
....AO 0 - 1 7
N6^46' 34"

33
1001 9
3"

0
33

12

32
7^ 1.
3-4
18 5

'2
12

RG
21.12

er Village
2^ . 0
'0

41 98 -1
22

6 33
Norway
2"
17

11 88
N4 30 8

'5
1470
en

0" 3 3
L

82 60 60
6.

W
2200
P)
VO

2)
33
76

VI
87 (P CO
m
10

33

0(

6 )
10 BDY
P)
5

P
G 33
)
tA

P)
5-7

12

33
6

0(
51
.
!
W
X
872975 52
0(

Hall
57
0E

22

0(
97
9
1s
W

2015

12
2200 10
12
2

5
33

5
-2

12
1
L

16
40.08
VO

0-5

N4
33 33 76
1930
0
25

37 1490
872974 V C
12

7^
33

....

.3
8. A
AO O 6
L

16
C 60
CO 51975
33

46
G Short
VO

0
Subd 4
.
! 2020
47 6
2190 9

12
39 39 0
CO 21766

b '2 60
33 33 y 118 2 11
33

7"
45 C 28 10
1.

45 (1
PARCEL A 1460 o 7 92 W
5
90

60
E

60 C 60 BDY

60
2

4)
8 3 60.84

7"
3"

33
.9

0
60
52
4

m
89

2^ 66

No
'0

12
2 60
'0

.9

8 9104684 m 60
11
79.41

ST
N4 86.
50

44
CO 773

16
CAL C FILE

12
2

7
CO 773

N4 1020
77.77

(1
84

R= 50
E

33
36 .1
2

7^ 1.9 60 0/
4"

......
.9

5.

5
ST

TE
60
0

17 1505
VO 8 . 60
4
16

'0

41 8
12
53

IA
6

60
9 .0
25

60 /1
.2

76
.6

60

60
'5 33
2120
17

88
7
74

R
4 2014 (P
43
3

49 .0

60 16
IN

0" 2)
R= 7
3

56 ium RY
2^

60 60
RA

BO
3
15

46 W PCL B
1455
42
.7

0.
9
N4

0525
5.

2121 1324 2 BDY

24.43

RG
W ESTL A K E

41
34

N
5. 60
1000 40
17

72

3
on min
16

60
NO

8
RE
17 60 98 60

AV
470 .26

1.

0515
79.41

42
16

12

.2

IO
N4
VI

6 1445 33
32

ra b2015
14 60
80

87

7 5.
N
1 7^
LE

60
5.

9. (P
2118
90
9.

89
901 o
10
10

99 43 )
1
11

nd
'0 1510 AV 2
56.63

IT
60
10
BDY0540
C 135430 922 7
60 1 9
1

60 0"
G
(P
N8^0 1'35 "W

1310
10

.
! o
0
6"

2101 2013 N4 )
17 20

W
24
1
2

0
0

7^
8
'1

16
0

7-9

C 1370 60

D
o

2^ 5.
12
12

BDY 5 2115
12

60
0510
N
22

42

OF
N6^ 46' 35"

21.36

0545 026980
N4 23

24
73

0500 6

0
d

'2
L

60
1530 16 1

D
VO

12
en

7"
2-7

60
11
35

1 )
43 60
Am

88 P
3
24

1 4 0(
G
A
.8 60

110
60
.
! BDY 6
L

60
9

12
6
VO

C 25 60
0
AV

88

12

O
41
79.41

.4 60
5 Kroll Map Company is a registered trademark.

CO
CO 773

9.

SARAH A
50
4 3
0
6 60 60 4 3
W

33.62

12
11

89 60 (P
0 6
2

60 0 )
.0

8T
60
10 60
G
.
!
22

60
2
3

0
.8

60
12

4 11
H
28.72
18

55 21 3 2 BDY 60
5 BDY
60

36
60

AV G
79.41

60

.3
0

.7
.
! 41 11
12
94

12
CO 773

60
3 0
5 60
7.

60 (P
60
12

)
N4 3
0

4
16

12

7^ N4 60 60
E

60
Ni

9T
7
11

42
3

08 -4
0

(P
2"

12
60

1
18 85

7-

90 2-
nt

'0 60 60 )

H
12
'0

E
-1

34 42
2^ 1.

0"
8"

4
88 )
h

W
2

5. 60 N4 42
14 ( P

W 2
N4 32

N4

ST

AV
'0

7^ 5.
0
&

98
23 60
3 60
0

12
70.05

17
16
12

9. 42 92
0

60
Le

VO
33

O
12
2^

99
CO

RD L N4 60 '3 60
IA

DMC
(P
N4

26 7^ 7 1" 60
no

11 2-9 )
E

42 (P

. G
60 W
IN

80
4"

G
! .
! 9
'3 1 2 60 )
08

8
ra

10 60
77

(P
'0

Es 3
P) 1

4
7.

16

0( 488

N4 4"
0
RG

m N4 )
33
1.

17

60
ST

12
t 11
0

W
Co

7 7-
33

60
6
0

16
12

3
32

7 0^ 4 2
2^

CO
12
8

42
8
12

2ND
60
VI

N4

7
12

.6 '4 -2
0
nd

60 60

340/290-
12

6W
9 0" 1
47

ADD
33

AR

11 BDY
N6^ 46' 31"

om
5
8

W
5.

G
23 60
.9

88 )

25 .
!
93. 71

11
14 P

9. 60
7

1
0(
"E
CO 773

3
9
12

EW

98 4
0
ini

60
CO 12
72.26

8
72.0 9

N4 25
0
2

12

60
11 0

85

16

60
12

(P
33

5
'5
2^ .4
0

7^ .9
0E

6 10
um

60 )
1.
12

N4 61

AO 42 2
-3

28

(P
ST

60
32
0

60

400
BDY
1
17

)
3

'3 (P
12

11 VOl 1-121
G
33

60
.
!
W

)
2-

35
8

1"
12 77
10 60
12

0( 81
N4

60 10 W
12 148
P)

60

- G
M 5 BDY
CO

DF

Figure 6.7 Existing site conditions.

 51
alleys would also need to occur. The other site is an existing parking lot and small park
with tall trees for a restaurant called 13 Coins and the Seattle Times Newspaper (Fig.
6.4 - 6.9). The site is relatively flat compared to the steep hill down to the east. This

VIEW TO LAK
gives potential upper stories good views west and to the Space Needle. The site is next

E UNION
VIEW TO SPACE NEED
LE to the Amazon Campus and housing development to the east. It sits between Fairview
Ave and Westlake Ave; two very pedestrian friendly streets with two types of public
SCHOOL
SITE

VIEW TO DOWNTOWN
transportation. John Street and Boren Avenue are very quite streets which can be used
VIEW RANGE FROM
for services and school drop-off. This site is also best because it is in a tall zoning height
FROM FLOOR 1-2

WINTER SUN
VIEW RANGE FROM
FROM FLOOR 3+
TRAFFIC NOISE
and is closer to downtown, but doesn’t have large buildings or blocks to the south that
prevent sunlight from getting to the site. This will be the site of the school for South
SUMMER SUN

Lake Union. The contextual response to the site is one that is fits to the urban grid and
Figure 6.8 Site Analysis of Environmental Forces addresses light and views with an appropriate massing (Fig. 6.9 - 10).

Program

The manifestation of the future learning environment is an urban K-8 school for
LOW TRAFFIC STREET
the Seattle Public School system. A standard elementary school (K-5) makes sense for
RETAIN EXISTING PARK
the current situation of South Lake Union, but the main reasoning for including middle
ENTRY

school (6-8) was because of size and scope. By expanding into middle school grades, it
SCHOOL BUS CIRCULATION

ALLOW SUNLIGHT TO PARK

HOLD URBAN EDGE ON FAIRVIEW

EAST/WEST ORIENTATION FOR

DAYLIGHTING CONTROL
allows more exploration of technology in more advanced development stages of school
SERVICE

along with those different physical spaces. The site for the school is large enough and
PLAYGROUND RECEIVES DIRECT SUN
zoning heights are tall enough to fit the building square footage multiple times. This
leaves room for outdoor space and circulation. The site is not large enough for track and
HOLD URBAN EDGE ON DENNY WAY
field events, so students will have to use other fields like the one at Seattle Center.

The program of the school will be split into development stages and separated
Figure 6.9 Site Analysis of Contextual Forces
in grades groups (Fig. 6.11). The groups are split into Kindergarten, first and second
grade, third through fifth grade, and sixth through eighth grade. Each group will have a
different curriculum and an altered approach to using technology and physical spaces.
First through second grade and third through fifth grade will have different curriculum
 52

Figure 6.10 Areal view of the School on the Site

 53
but similar physical learning spaces.

In addition to the learning spaces, there will be a community gathering space,

administration and office space, a gymnasium, a cafeteria, commons, a mixing chamber,
and course specific classrooms such as music and art class. The organization and
connection between all of these elements vertically is important so that floors do not
become dividing planes. The orientation and amount of light that each of these spaces
can omit will also impact the location and grouping of certain spaces (Fig. 6.13). A sense
of visual community and identity is important for a successful school. Another way of
creating a strong school community and identity is by being involved in the community
and bringing the community into the building and site. Making the school a community
owned and invested space will benefit the students and the public. By providing
this community space in combination with the gymnasium, the relations with the
context will grow to where the building could be used all day and afternoon. Building
technology, sustainable technology, and learning in general thus can reach a larger
audience.

The primary intention of this thesis is to explore the learning environment for
the technology created learning typologies. While the focus of the design will be interior
spaces and architectural design, the program and site analysis speaks to a broader
understanding and appreciation for the larger context. The selection of an urban site
and the addition of program is a contextual consideration to overall improve the current
place and continue the improvement of South Lake Union.
 54
M W Teacher M W
8th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep 160sqft 160sqft
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
8th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
Middle School

Middle School
Shared Shared
M W Teacher M W Teacher
Space Space
7th Grade 7th Grade 7th Grade 7th Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep Vocal Music Instrumental Music TV & Video 7th Grade 7th Grade 7th Grade 7th Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep
1500sqft 1500sqft
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft

M W Teacher 6th Grade 6th Grade 6th Grade 6th Grade M W

160sqft 160sqft Prep 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 160sqft 160sqft
6th Grade 6th Grade 6th Grade 6th Grade Art Room Industrial Tech Robotics
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft

Vocal Music Instrumental Music TV & Video

750sqft 750sqft 750sqft

Art Room Industrial Tech Robotics

Upper Grade

Upper Grade
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft

M W Teacher M W
5th Grade 5th Grade 5th Grade 5th Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep 160sqft 160sqft
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
5th Grade 5th Grade 5th Grade 5th Grade
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
School

School
M W Teacher Shared Shared M W Teacher
160sqft 160sqft Prep Space Space 160sqft 160sqft Prep
4th Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade
1500sqft 1500sqft
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft

M W Teacher 3rd Grade 3rd Grade 3rd Grade 3rd Grade M W

3rd Grade 3rd Grade 3rd Grade 3rd Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep Music Room TV & VIdeo 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 160sqft 160sqft Music Room TV & VIdeo
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft

Art Room Robotics

750sqft 750sqft
Lower Grade

Lower Grade
M W Teacher M W
2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep Art Room Robotics 160sqft 160sqft
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
Shared Shared
School

School
Space Space
100sqft 100sqft
M W Teacher M W Teacher
1st Grade 1st Grade 1st Grade 1st Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep 1st Grade 1st Grade 1st Grade 1st Grade 160sqft 160sqft Prep
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft
Kinder-

Kinder-
garten

garten
M W Adult M W Adult
160sqft 160sqft 160sqft Shared Shared 160sqft 160sqft 160sqft
Pre-K Pre-K Kindergarten Kindergarten Space Pre-K Pre-K Kindergarten Kindergarten Space
750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 500sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 750sqft 500sqft
Administration

Administration
M W M W
160sqft 160sqft 160sqft 160sqft

Administration Administration
- Reception - Reception
- Offices School Kitchen School Commons/ - Offices School Kitchen School Commons/
- Health 3000sqft Cafeteria - Health 3000sqft Cafeteria
- Advising 4800sqft - Advising 4800sqft
4800sqft 4800sqft

M W M W
160sqft 160sqft 160sqft 160sqft

Community Commons Community Commons

Community

Community
4800sqft 4800sqft

Outdoor Play and Classrooms Gymnasium Outdoor Play and Classrooms Gymnasium
14940sqft 7470sqft 14940sqft 7470sqft
Shared

Shared
Faculty Parking

Faculty Parking

Under Ground Under Ground

Parking Parking
7470sqft 7470sqft

Figure 6.11 Programming and Square Footage Figure 6.12 Programming Conceptually Grouped and Reorganized
 55
Space / Users Tasks Daylight Sunlight View to the Access to Exterior
Exterior

Reception People/Paper/Screens Yes Accept- Yes Entrance

able
Admin Offices Screens Yes No Yes No
Health Students Yes No Maybe No
Gymnasium Sports Yes No Maybe Yes
Community Multiple Tasks Yes Accept- Yes Yes
able
Cafeteria Food and People Yes Accept- Yes Yes
able
Mixing Chamber Books, Screens, Yes Maybe Yes No
People
“Classrooms” Screens, People, Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Books
Bathrooms Fixtures, Mirror Maybe Accept- No No
able
Art Rooms Art, Paper, Clay Yes Maybe Yes No
Music Rooms Paper, People Yes No Maybe No
Industrial. Tech. Equipment Yes No No No
TV and Video Screens, Controlled No No No No
Light settings
Shared Space People, Stairs Yes Yes Yes Maybe

Figure 6.13 Lighting Criteria

 56
FOURTH PLANE
18 - 24
Part 2. Learning Types and Age Development Groups with Technology

8TH GRADE Learning with technology allows for new freedoms and new learning types
7TH GRADE FORMAL OPERATION STAGE THIRD PLANE
6TH GRADE 11 - ADULT 12 - 18 outside of the traditional classroom setting. As mentioned previously in the thesis,
5TH GRADE
4TH GRADE
these freedoms allow for more active and personal learning types. The use of personal
3RD GRADE
ICT devices can be fully integrated in a curriculum but it is not appropriate for every
CONCRETE OPERATIONAL SECOND PLANE
2ND GRADE
1ST GRADE STAGE 6 -12 age of student. Because different age groups are not as developed or responsible as
7-11
older children, certain technologies and learning types are not available till the student
reaches an older age.
KINDERGARTEN PREOPERATIONAL STAGE FIRST PLANE
2-7 BIRTH - 6
The figures to the left (Fig. 7.1, 7.2) provide a guideline for how a curriculum
might be set using different technologies. The general idea is that ICT would not be
SENSORIMOTOR STAGE
fully integrated in learning till the student reaches the oldest age group. Children in the
DOWNTOWN PIAGET’S STAGES OF MONTESSORI’S PLANES
SCHOOL GROUP CHILD DEVELOPMENT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT
earliest age group would use ICT devices very infrequently so that other sensory skills
can be developed that are critical in this age stage. This would allow students in this
Figure 7.1 Age Development Groups and Grade age to be familiar with ICT devices in a less formal way. In the next age groups, first
and second grade, the use of technology is used in the classroom for group assignments
and projects and occasionally for personal learning and tutoring. The third through fifth
8TH GRADE FULL INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY WITH
grade age group would then use the devices in class more regularly and eventually be
7TH GRADE
6TH GRADE
PERSONAL LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND SCHEDULE able to take home their own device to work and learn from outside of the school. In
5TH GRADE USES TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOM AND HAS middle school, students are at the point where they should be familiar with the devices
4TH GRADE
INDIVIDUAL DEVICE
3RD GRADE
to use them in a comprehensive way where they have a unique learning curriculum
USES TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOM
2ND GRADE
BUT DOES NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL DEVICE
that is fit their specific learning needs. This will allow students to progress to their full
1ST GRADE
potential. Students will see what they are succeeding in and where they are struggling.
The full integration of ICT promotes a freedom from the traditional classroom learning
KINDERGARTEN EXPOSED TO TECHNOLOGY BUT IT IS NOT type and frees up for different learning types and environments. These learning types
USED FREQUENTLY
are response to the effects of ICT and the goals of the 21st Century Framework to have a
more active, transparent, community, and collaborative learning environment.
DOWNTOWN
SCHOOL GROUP

Figure 7.2 How Age Groups learn with Technology

 57
CLASSROOM / GROUP DISCUSSION AND PROJECTS AND ASSIGNMENTS The learning types that are identified are represented with the symbols and
GROUP LECTURE COLLABORATION

colors (Fig. 7.2). These learning types are found in different learning environments
through out each age development group but the physical learning environments may
be completely different. It is also possible, and very likely, that multiple learning types
can happen in one learning environment.

SOCIAL LOUNGE
SMALL GROUP LECTURE
DISPLAY AND GATHER SCIENCE / WET LAB The red colored learning type represents the standard traditional classroom
HANDS ON
where one teacher is with twenty-five students teaching in a lecture format. The two
orange colored learning types are active group settings where students discuss and learn
from one another with the guidance of a teacher, technology, or an assigned project.
The yellow colored learning types represent more informal social and gathering learning.
These learning types are used to display work to others as well as take advantage of
ONE ON ONE SELF STUDY
the physical interactively that happens between students at school, unlike that of a
digital social space. The green learning type symbolizes the hands on learning and other
technological learning that can occur that is not digital. The blue colored learning types
are ones that are typically more passive and personal. These learning types are used for
tutoring, small group lectures, and self studying.

Figure 7.3 Learning Types Because ICT has provided freedom from the traditional classroom learning
environment, these learning types are able to be used more frequently. These learning
types that expand on the classroom are then organized physically around the traditional
classroom to create learning communities (Fig. 7.3 - 7.5). To help achieve these new
learning types, an appropriate environmental and architectural response is necessary to
make these them work and also meet to goals of the 21st Century Framework.
 58

GROUP INDIV INDIV

FLEX
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
GROUP

NEIGHBORHOOD SCIENCE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM DISPLAY / GATHER CLASSROOM GROUP

LOUNGE CLASSROOM LOUNGE CLASSROOM
NEIGHBORHOOD
INDIV

Figure 7.4 First - Second Grade Program Diagram Figure 7.5 Third - Fifth Grade Program Diagram.

STORAGE

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

SCIENCE
LAB &
GARDEN
NEIGHBORHOOD
DISPLAY
MUSIC CLASSROOM DIGITAL
NEIGHBORHOOD LOUNGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

INDIV INDIV

TEST CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

GROUP GROUP

ELEC CAFE ELEC CAFE GROUP

PROJECT
INDIV INDIV INDIV

LOUNGE NEIGHBORHOOD FLEX FLEX

GROUP GROUP
INDIV INDIV INDIV
INDIV

Figure 7.6
TESTING Sixth - Eight Grade
CLASSROOM Program Diagram.
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

ELEC CAFE ELEC CAFE

GROUP
PROJECT

INDIDVIDUAL STUDY ELECTRONIC CAFE FLEX FLEX

LOUNGE
 59
Part 3. The Learning Environment

The learning types that were discussed earlier are supported with different
learning environments in the school. The learning environment has typically been
thought of just the classroom space. The resulting learning environment for this thesis
expands on the classroom with the new learning types to make active, transparent, and
collaborative spaces for students to learn.

As mentioned earlier, these spaces differ based on age development group. The
school itself has physically been broken down into these three age development groups.
Each floor of the school, starting at the third floor, contains one grade level. These floors
and grades have been designed internally to create collaborative spaces to interact
between students and teachers outside their home classroom, called neighborhoods.
These neighborhoods are spaces that typically house the orange and yellow learning
types. Another dimension is added to the neighborhood concept by connecting
between floors. Because not all students learn at the same age but are in the same
age group, double and triple height mezzanines are designed to connect the different
levels and grades within the age groups. For example, first and second grade have a
connecting mezzanine, and third through fifth have two connecting mezzanines.

To further support these age groups and neighborhoods within the designed
high-rise school, a high capacity elevator is able to carry a class load of students to a
designated floor in the age group and their corresponding floors (Fig. 7.6). Students
and teachers then can walk up or down one flight of stairs to reach their destination.
This creates a better sense of community among those floors and grades within the age
group.

The first age group, first and second grade, organizes the classrooms around a
central space in the center (Fig. 7.11, 7.16). Each classroom has a transparent garage
door that opens up to the central space so it can become one large area if needed. In
 GREEN ROOF /
URBAN GARDEN

60

INDIVIDUAL LEARNING ROOF

8TH
ELECTRONIC
CAFE

7TH

THEATER / LECTURE
6TH
GROUP WORK

CREATE
SPECIALTY CLASSROOM

5TH
LINKED MEZZANINE

4TH

NEIGHBORHOOD
3RD

LINKED MEZZANINE
2ND
LAB / GREEN HOUSE
THE “WINDOW”

1ST

PLAYGROUND
CAFETERIA CAFETERIA / PLAYGROUND
EXISTING PARK

ENTRY / GYMNASIUM
GYMNASIUM

COMMUNITY Figure 7.7 Building Axon Diagram

40 Person capacity elevators allow a full class
to move to the middle floor of the age group
and then take the stairs up or down one floor.
 61

Figure 7.8 Diagram of Vertical Circulation Figure 7.9 Diagram of Classroom Locations

Figure 7.10 Diagram of “Boxes” Figure 7.11 Diagram of “Neighborhoods”

 62
the central space are different areas to work in groups. This area is an active area and
may sometimes become loud. Enclosed spaces linked to the central spaces are designed
for large groups and small tutoring sessions. These spaces support the blue color
learning types: quite and personal learning. On the south side, a connecting mezzanine
allows direct light into the social space and links the two grades together. To the east,
the “window”, a large opening in the building, is used to learn about plants and other
hands-on outdoor education. It is important that students and teachers have this direct
access to the outdoor. This young age group in comparison to the older ones is very
secure and monitored. The children are still very dependent and need supervision.
While most of the time will likely be spent in the classroom in this age development
group, the neighborhood space is the strongest because of it central location to all the
classrooms.

The second age development group (Fig. 7.12, 7.17), third through fourth grade,
is very similar to the previous age development group discussed except that it is more
open and allows more freedom. The use of technology for this age group increases but
the main reason to separate this age group and the previous is because of the physical
size and maturation change in students. The classrooms open out onto a larger space
and the neighborhood expands beyond the floor. This age group has two mezzanines
that connect the three floors. In this learning environment, there are more group
discussion tutoring rooms for students. The connection the outdoor is by a bridge
that spans over too a science / wet lab room. Instead of a large open area, this bridge
provides space for hanging plants. The design of the second age group is a progression
from the previous age group design toward a more open and active environment
between grades.

In the final age group in this thesis (Fig. 7.13, 7.18), sixth through seventh, the
physical learning environment is designed to meet the use of a fully integrated use of
technology and independent curriculums. Four floors are connected together with a
 63
GROUP LECTURE Figure 7.12 Age Group: 1st Grade - 2nd Grade

ENCLOSED FLEXIBLE SPACE

TUTORING ROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM OUTDOOR GARDEN WET LAB / SCIENCE LAB

NEIGHBORHOOD

SOCIAL LOUNGE
GRADE CONNECTION

CLASSROOM GATHERING SPACE

SPECIALTY CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM / GROUP DISCUSSION AND TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS SOCIAL LOUNGE DISPLAY AND GATHER SMALL GROUP LECTURE ONE ON ONE SELF STUDY WET LAB / HANDS ON
GROUP LECTURE COLLABORATION
 64
TUTORING / SELF STUDY ROOM Figure 7.13 Age Group: 3rd Grade - 4th Grade

GROUP LECTURE / PRESENTATIONS

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM HANGING GARDEN WET LAB / SCIENCE LAB

TUTORING /
SELF STUDY
ROOM

NEGIHBORHOOD

SOCIAL LOUNGE
GRADE LEVEL CONNECTION

SPECIALTY CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM / GROUP DISCUSSION AND TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS SOCIAL LOUNGE DISPLAY AND GATHER SMALL GROUP LECTURE ONE ON ONE SELF STUDY WET LAB / HANDS ON
GROUP LECTURE COLLABORATION
 65
GROUP LECTURE / PRESENTATIONS Figure 7.14 Age Group: 6th Grade - 8th Grade

TUTORING / SELF STUDY ROOM

CLASSROOM

GROUP LECTURE /
PRESENTATIONS
QUIET AREAS
FOR GROUP
WORK AND
PROJECTS TUTORING /
SELF STUDY
ROOM

TUTORING / CLASSROOM
SELF STUDY
ROOM

CONFERENCE CLASSROOM
& LARGE GROUP MEETINGS

SOCIAL LOUNGE ELECTRONIC CAFE

GRADE LEVEL CONNECTION

CONFERENCE CLASSROOM
& LARGE GROUP MEETINGS

FLEXIBLE WORKS SPACE

FOR ACTIVE PROJECTS

CLASSROOM / GROUP DISCUSSION AND TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS SOCIAL LOUNGE DISPLAY AND GATHER SMALL GROUP LECTURE ONE ON ONE SELF STUDY WET LAB / HANDS ON
GROUP LECTURE COLLABORATION
 66
main central staircase. At the landing of the staircases are “electronic cafes”. These
spaces are meant to be physical spaces to exchange information, in contrast to sharing
information digitally. Students can plug in their devices, upload and download, and
check their schedules and other events at these locations. A similar “cafe” is located
at the entrance of clustered classrooms. In this scheme, classrooms serve for specific
subjects and may only be homerooms at the beginning and ends of the day. The clusters
have a tutoring room between them and a small lecture room as well. They are close
to the classrooms so they may be used by students that may be in class at that time
but need additional help or instruction. These classroom clusters occur on the north
side of the school, and all of the active learning type spaces are on the south side. The
spaces on the south side use the colored boxes for enclosed private learning types.
Some “boxes” are larger than others and can hold a large discussion groups or a small
class. The smaller “boxes” are individual tutor and study rooms. These spaces can
be controlled and adapted to the functions inside, unlike the open and flexible spaces
outside of them. The floor plan is arrange so that two ends are contrasting. The west
end with the small tutoring and study rooms are designed to be a quiet end, while the
east end is designed to have active and collaborative projects and assignments. Unlike
the elementary school grades who use the “window”, the middle school has access to
the roof for garden and outdoor education. Overall, the middle school age group is
designed to accommodate the wide variety of learning types that were identified earlier
while still achieving a transparent, active, and collaborative setting where students can
learn.

The focus of this thesis is the interior of the building and the differences in age
group learning environments, the overall building design attempts to resolve the larger
issues of a K-8 high-rise school in an urban area. The colored “boxes” (Fig. 7.15) that
were mentioned have another purpose for the students while on the exterior. The boxes
 67
are a visual cue to those outside the building. The color and sizes of the “boxes” break
down the scale of the building by showing the students where spaces they use are in
relationship to the whole. By showing where a student works from the outside of the
building in relationship the entire building gives a sense and understanding of what is
happening on the interior.

In addition to the “boxes”, a fluctuating shading system shows spaces that need
to be shaded and those that do not need to be shaded. This is not only a response to
environmental forces, but another way to connect the outsider to the inside. Using
these two languages throughout the overall building design gives the building and school
a unified design that also signifies the program differences between the different age
groups.

The learning environments are a reflection of the learning types that information
and communication technology has freed from the traditional teaching method in a
single classroom. The design of the interior keeps the idea of a traditional classroom
because of its success and familiarity it has in the history of schools. The way the
learning environment is used will be determined by the teachers and their dedication to
technology and how students learn, but the grade levels have been designed to facilitate
the foreseeable needs of the future learning environment.
 68

Figure 7.15 School Entryway

 69

Figure 7.16 School Playground

 70

Figure 7.17 1st Grade Neighborhood

 71

Figure 7.18 3rd-5th Grade Social Lounge

 72

Figure 7.19 6th-8th Grade Electronic Cafe

 73
Conclusions

During the final review of the thesis, there was a discussion with the jurors on
the resulting learning environment. The main question that was brought up was not
whether information technology had influenced my design or not, but if the learning
environment could be used without technology and if my design methods produced a
type of environment that was actually different from something today that is without
the influence of information technology. The defense for this question was that the
learning environment could be used with out technology but the use of the space
is designed to facilitate for all types of learning to take place including learning with
information technology. These types of spaces would be possible without technology
with a large amount of teachers for supervision and instruction, but the thesis takes
an approach that proposes a realistic number of instructors and that information
technology allows freedoms from the classroom because it is used as a teaching
tool to create these additional learning types and additional learning environments.
Trying to bridge technology to learning types and curriculum, and then to the learning
environment has caused an unclear connection between the beginning and the end.
Because the thesis tries to facilitate an ever changing field of technological devices, the
spaces and their uses feel a little ambiguous. In the end, the spaces are the result of
my process of trying to provided for the learning types resulted from the use of digital
devices while still meeting the goals of the 21st Century Framework.

The strongest attribute of my thesis that was discussed during the thesis review
was the design of the neighborhoods and the double height mezzanines that connect
the different age development groups. The breakdown of age groups and connection of
the different grade levels between floors was a strong design solution for a multi-story
building. The decision to vary the learning types and environments has lead to a more
comprehensive and realistic solution that takes a broader look at technology and age.
 74
I believe that the goal for the design of the thesis was to really dive into the
interior of the building and try to figure out what these different types of learning spaces
would look like and how they would be arranged. The end result is still diagrammatic
in a sense, but it takes a good look at what may be possible in the different age groups.
The design of the connecting mezzanines and double height spaces are where the
building comes alive and is the most exciting. Other questions in the discussion during
the final review dealt with the overall building design and the relationship of the interior
to the transparency of the skin. While there were valid points on the overall building
design, this was not the focus of the thesis. The thesis design does though set up a
language that can be used to solve these issues if the design were to go further. Through
the process of the thesis I have gained a significant amount knowledge about the history
of schools, the changes in child development, the last uses of technology in education,
and the controversies that arise during the discussions of having technology in schools.

In conclusion, the learning environments designed were influenced by my

findings about school history, age development, and the future of information and
communication technology. The learning environment is one that has multiple types of
spaces for different learning types. The age groups provide a way to explore different
levels of digital integration. The resulting building design and organization is a response
to these findings and site context forces such as daylighting, views, and the urban street
edge. The overall building location is a response to the need of downtown Seattle’s
growing population and densification. In the end, information and communication
technology is just a learning tool, but the effects of this tool can spread to the built
environment it is used to its full potential. It is the responsibility of future architects to
design for this possible potential while still designing to achieve the other goals of the
21st Century Framework.
 FLOOR 1 - ENTRY, KINDERGARTEN, GYM, COMMUNITY CENTER 75
Appendix

50 CAR GARAGE
PARKING

MECH.

ELEVATORS

GYM

FLOOR 0 - PARKING
 FLOOR 2 - CAFETERIA & PLAYGROUND

76
BUS & CAR DROP OFF

BUS WAITING

UNDERGROUND ENTRANCE

EXISTING PARK

ENTRY
ENTER / CONNECT / EXERCISE

RECEPTION

ADMIN

ADMIN

PRINCIPAL
ADMIN

ADMIN

ADMIN

ADMIN / NURSE
SERVCE

SERVICE
LOADING GYM
STORAGE
OFFICE

KITCHEN
MEETING

COMMUNITY
CENTER

FLOOR 1 - ENTRY, KINDERGARTEN, GYM, COMMUNITY CENTER

 NEIGHBORHOOD

STA
DISPLAY
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
ART

FLOOR 3 - 1ST GRADE

77

ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN

EAT & PLAY

KITCHEN

PLAYFIELD PLAYGROUND

YOUNG
COMMUNITY
FACULTY
DINING

CAFETERIA

FLOOR 2 - CAFETERIA & PLAYGROUND

BUS & CAR DROP OFF

BUS WAITING

UNDERGROUND ENTRANCE
UPPER

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

78
CLASSROOM FLEX
NEIGHBORHOOD ROBOTICS
LOUNGE

FLOOR 5 - 3RD GRADE

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

SCIENCE
LAB &
GARDEN
NEIGHBORHOOD
STARTING AGE GROUP

DISPLAY
MUSIC
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

FLOOR 4 - 2ND GRADE

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

GARDEN
STORAGE
NEIGHBORHOOD
DISPLAY
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
ART

FLOOR 3 - 1ST GRADE

ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN

 SPEECH / THEATER

FLOOR 8 - CREATE

79

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM FLEX
NEIGHBORHOOD F.A.C.S.
UPPER ELEMENTARY AGE GROUP

FLOOR 7 - 5TH GRADE

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

SCIENCE
LAB &
GARDEN

CLASSROOM FLEX
NEIGHBORHOOD DIGITAL
LOUNGE

FLOOR 6 - 4TH GRADE

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM FLEX
NEIGHBORHOOD ROBOTICS
LOUNGE

FLOOR 5 - 3RD GRADE STORAGE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

SCIENCE
LAB &
GARDEN
NEIGHBORHOOD
MIDDLE
FLOOR 10 - 7TH GRADE

80
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
TESTING

GROUP
ELECTRONIC BAR SHARE

NEWSPAPER
YEARBOOK LOUNGE FLEX FLEX

SPEECH / THEATER

FLOOR 9 - 6TH GRADE

BAND ORCHESTRA CHOIR

DIGITAL LAB
SHOP
CREATE

LOUNGE ROBOTICS
ART

SPEECH / THEATER

FLOOR 8 - CREATE

STORAGE
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM FLEX
NEIGHBORHOOD F.A.C.S.
TARY AGE GROUP

FLOOR 7 - 5TH GRADE

STORAGE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

SCIENCE
LAB &
GARDEN

CLASSROOM FLEX
NEIGHBORHOOD DIGITAL
LOUNGE
 ROOF PLAN

81

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

TESTING

GROUP
ELECTRONIC BAR
SHARE

INDIDVIDUAL STUDY LOUNGE FLEX FLEX

MIDDLE SCHOOL AGE GROUP

FLOOR 11 - 8TH GRADE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

TESTING

GROUP
ELECTRONIC BAR SHARE

INDIDVIDUAL STUDY LOUNGE FLEX FLEX

FLOOR 10 - 7TH GRADE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

TESTING

GROUP
ELECTRONIC BAR SHARE

NEWSPAPER
YEARBOOK LOUNGE FLEX FLEX

SPEECH / THEATER

FLOOR 9 - 6TH GRADE

BAND ORCHESTRA CHOIR

DIGITAL LAB
SHOP
EATE

LOUNGE ROBOTICS
 82

GROW

GARDEN

ROOF PLAN

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

TESTING

GROUP
ELECTRONIC BAR
SHARE

INDIDVIDUAL STUDY LOUNGE FLEX FLEX

OOL AGE GROUP

FLOOR 11 - 8TH GRADE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

TESTING

GROUP
ELECTRONIC BAR SHARE
 83

Section
 84
Bibliography
Benedikt, Michael. “Environmental Stoicism and Place Machismo.” Harvard Design Magazine Winter/
Spring.16 (2002): Print.

Elkind, David. Child Development and Education: A Piagetian Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press,
1976. Print.

Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. School. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. Print.

Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. [S.l.]: F.W. Dodge, 1954. XI. Print.

Davies, Douglas. Child Development: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford Press, 2004. Print.

“Expeditionary Learning.” Expeditionary Learning. Outward Bound. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://elschools.

org/>.

Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric C. Freed. Sustainable School Architecture: Design for Primary and Secondary Schools.
Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.

Hefling, Kimberly. “Challenge to Schools: Embracing Digital Textbooks.” Seattlepi.com. Associated Press, 1

Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Challenge-to-schools-Embracing-
digital-textbooks-2916164.php>.

Hille, R T. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley and Sons, 2011.
Print.

Hu, Winnie. “Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the IPad.” The New York Times. The New York
Times, 04 Jan. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.
html?pagewanted=all>.

John, Peter D, and Steve Wheeler. The Digital Classroom: Harnessing Technology for the Future of Learning
and Teaching. London: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Kohler, Richard. Jean Piaget. London: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2008. Print.

Lentz, Linda. “Leutschenbach School: Christian Kerez.” Architecture Record Jan. 2012: Print.

Lippman, Peter C. Evidence-based Design of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley, 2010.
Print.

LPA, Inc. Green School Primer: Lessons in Sustainability. Mulgrave, Vic.: Images Pub. 2009. Print.

Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati. Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces. Rotterdam: Sense, 2010.
 85
20. 57. Print.

McGregor, Jane. “Space, Power and the Classroom.”Forum: for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education.
46.1 (2004): 15. Print.

Montessori, Maria. The Four Planes of Education. Amsterdam: Association Montessori Internationale, 1971.
Print.

Montessori, Maria, and Anne E. George. The Montessori Method. New York: Schocken Books, 1964. Print.

The New York Times Company. “Schools For Tomorrow: Bringing Technology into the Classroom.” The New
York Times SFTM White Paper (2011). 3. Print.

“The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.” The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://
www.p21.org/>.

Rury, John L. Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Schooling. Mahwah, N.J: L.
Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Print.

“Salman Khan: Let’s Use Video to Reinvent Education.” TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED Conferences, LLC,
Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_
education.html>.

The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning. New York: Abrams, 2010.
Print.

“Skill Map and Playlist.” School of One – Concept. School of One. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://schoolofone.
org/concept_keyfeatures.html>.

USA. King County. Department of Development & Environmental Services. King County Comprehensive Plan.
2012 ed. Seattle: King County, 2011. Print.

Ward, Jacob. “Too Cool for A School.” Architecture 90.2 (2001): Print.

Zumthor, Peter. Atmospheres: Architectural Environments, Surrounding Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006.

Print.