Conduciveness of School Environment Towards Learning With Total Building Performance (TBP) through Integrated Design Process (IDP)

Conduciveness of School Environment Towards Learning With Total Building Performance (TBP) through Integrated Design Process (IDP)

R.K.Khanna , H.B.Gang and L.S.Pheng Department of Building, National University of Singapore

rajkhanna@nus.edu.sg raj_kkhanna@rediffmail.com

Abstract

In past decades, the concept of total building performance and its application to commercial and residential buildings have invoked great interests among researchers in this field. The evaluation of academic institutions using this concept may further provide a platform to better understand critical issues related to the learning environment in schools. In an attempt to understand the conduciveness of the classroom environment towards learning, qualitative assessments are proposed in this paper to investigate the performance of classrooms in schools. Performance is indicated by the measurement and evaluation of six Total Building Performance (TBP) mandates, namely thermal, spatial, visual, acoustic, indoor air quality, and building integrity. The adoption and assessment using these six mandates may give rise to interesting results with regards to the performance of classrooms. The paper also highlights the importance of Integrated Design Process (IDP) in delivering total building performance with sustainable results proposed by the design and building team members. The paper suggests that sustainability and conduciveness in the classroom and school environment can go hand in hand with TBP that is appropriately underpinned by IDP.

Keywords: Total building performance; Schools; Integrated design process, Evaluation

1.0 Introduction

In past decade there has been international emphasis on resource management, in particular energy and economic resources leading to new requirements in addition to the previous demands of health, safety, and welfare in a building. This over emphasis of a single building requirement has in turn triggered a series of measurable building failure (1999). Building failures are owing to lack of trans-disciplinary coordination among each building performance mandate .The importance of understanding the total performance of a building in a holistic sense cannot be denied . Furthermore, building evaluation is and should be a first priority so as to effectively predict future building performance.

The concept of total building performance and their evaluation has been expounded by researchers over last decade (1999; Hartkopf V 1983, 1993). However, much of the focus has been on commercial buildings, in particular the issue of sick office buildings and intelligent buildings rather than academic institutions (Atkin 1988; BC 1994; HM 1993; K. 1992; Shaw 1990; WFE 1989; Wood 1989). In present scenario where emphasis is increasingly placed on

academic qualification, schools have become part and parcel of every person‘s life. This directs the attention towards the conduciveness of classroom environment for learning. Total Building

Performance (TBP) is a framework that serves to understand the critical balance needed to simultaneously ensure all building performance mandates (Wong 2003). The definition of the mandates can be divided into two areas. First, there is the fundamental mandate for building enclosure integrity —protection of the building‘s visual, mechanical, and physical properties Performance (TBP) is a framework that serves to understand the critical balance needed to simultaneously ensure all building performance mandates (Wong 2003). The definition of the mandates can be divided into two areas. First, there is the fundamental mandate for building enclosure integrity —protection of the building‘s visual, mechanical, and physical properties

Objectives of the study are:

a) Qualitatively understand the performance of classrooms towards a conducive environment for learning.

b) Further the study makes an attempt to use integration of design and project management through IDP elaborating a proposed system that may be followed during a school design and construction till occupancy.

The study undertakes the following methodology:

a) Paper performs a literature review on the building performance and integration for a school. Developments in various countries such as Malaysia, US, UK etc have been studied to understand the suitability/conduciveness of physical environment in a school for learning.

b) Further, a review of Singapore guidelines on the standards and criteria for the planning of schools is done elaborately.

c) IDP integrating the design parameters with project management is reviewed subjectively in the paper as a proposed solution for achieving total building performance, sustainability and conduciveness in the learning environment.

2.0 Background

As a strategy to turn all the schools smart and further reduce the digital divide between the schools and improving access and equity to Information Communications and Technology (ICT), the Malaysian Government is leveraging and synergizing on the various ICT initiatives into one effort. In response to the same- computer laboratories, SchoolNet and EduWeb TV has been introduced in Malaysian schools. It has therefore become mandatory for the new facilities to be adequately integrated with the functioning of the school activities to provide the children with a conducive environment for learning. Rapidly ICT is becoming a mediator of learning in the multi components learning environments and is shown to support students and teachers in improving learning outcomes. In respect of providing an appropriate environment for the child to learn and

grow in school, an insight of child‘s physical environment becomes necessary to be investigated. Early Childhood Physical Environment Rating Scale (ECPERS) (Moore 1994) which has been

successfully tested in Australia, United Kingdom, and United States of America to assess the quality of the physical environment of pre-schools may be used to ascertain physical environment aspects of pre-schools and classrooms.

Code 905 and Code 908 described in Table 1 below could be formulated as a survey tool to quantify the physical environment aspects of their pre-schools and classrooms, respectively.

Table 1: Code 905 and 908

S.No. Code 905 : Ratings of the physical Code 908 : Ratings for the perception on the environment of pre-schools

physical environment of classrooms

1 Availability of spatial exposure Exposure and definition level of the activities

2 Availability of spatial separation Visual non obstruction level

3 Availability of visual relationship Appropriateness of size of space for activity centre

4 Availability of spatial wideness Appropriateness of size of space for storage

5 Availability of circulation zone Focus level of teaching and learning materials

6 Separation of teachers‘ working area Softness level of spatial surface

7 Availability of isolation/private space Level of spatial flexibility

8 Variety of seating space Variety level of seating/working areas

9 Appropriateness of the surfaces Quantity of teaching and learning resources

10 Outdoor/indoor visual connectivity Separation level of activity areas from circulation

11 Flexibility of the learning spaces

12 Appropriateness of the scale

13 Appropriateness of the storage

14 Appropriateness of the children‘s‘ eye- level

15 Visibility of the entrance to the activity centre

The findings of a pilot study (Ariffin & Ghazilla 2010) illustrated various integration issues in terms of anthropometrics of students of primary school and furniture provided. It also suggested customization of furniture that can accommodate with the variability across age and gender.

Children Physical Environment Rating Scale (CPERS) dealt with 14 subscales. These subscales could also be an effective measurement tool to understand child physical environment which can lead to better design (Moore 2007). 14 subscales have been further categorized in 4 broad areas such as planning, building as a whole, Indoor activity spaces and outdoor spaces as mentioned in Table 2 below.

Table 2: 14 subscales of CPERS

Part A. Planning

. Center size and modules

Part B. Building as a whole . Image and scale

. Circulation . Common core of shared facilities . Indoor environmental quality . Safety and security

Part C. Indoor activity . Modified open-plan space spaces

. Home bases

. Quiet activity areas

10. Physical activity areas

11. Messy activity areas

Part D. Outdoor spaces

12. Play yards: functional needs

13. Play yards: developmental needs

14. Location and site

As suggested, the above scale along with Code 905 and Code 908 can be used for a variety of purposes, including post-occupancy evaluation, research, policy guidance, and a shorthand design guide for new early childhood educational facilities or the modification of existing centers (Moore 2007).

Code 905 and Code 908 deal with physical environment aspects of pre-school and classrooms. However the above mentioned CPERS (14 subscales) is very appropriately categorized in planning, building as a whole, Indoor activity spaces and outdoor spaces. Strength of these measurement tools is its ability to pinpoint faults in post-construction or post-occupancy situations.

The scale can be used as a powerful tool for the Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of early childhood development and education centers. Such POEs could lead to programs or briefs for minor design interventions or major renovations. CPERS, therefore, can be a supplementary tool proving much-needed information on the quality of a building and its various spaces and including outdoor play areas, all vis-à-vis child developmental and educational principles (Moore 2007).

The CPERS scale, which explicitly includes a large number of descriptors of good environmental design for children, can be used by architects as a type of thumbnail design guide. For example, if POEs were done on existing centers in an area using CPERS, and a summary obtained, the relative positive and negative results would indicate some of the most important design issues on which to focus in a newly designed center. However, even if a POE were not conducted, a parent group or the board of directors of a new center could use the scale to identify which physical environmental considerations they wanted the architect to include in the program or brief for the new building, and thus in the design of the building (Moore 2007).

3.0 School Design In Singapore

Singapore is one of the developed countries which have been embracing the concept of TBP in a holistic way. Therefore a review of its guidelines on the standards and criteria for the planning of schools is done in terms of their relation with building performance mandates such as thermal, acoustic, visual, air, spatial comfort and building integrity.Guidelines on the standards and criteria for the planning of schools in Singapore are provided in design handbooks for both primary and secondary schools (Liew KPM 1981).

General Requirements

With regards to the orientation of school building, the best orientation is with the longitudinal axis in the east –west direction to provide optimum sun shading for the building. Windows are best located facing north or south. Alternatively, when the building is oriented with the windows facing east or west, specially designed sun shading devices are provided (Wong 2003). If natural ventilation from prevailing breezes proves inadequate, ceiling fans are provided.

Thermal performance requirements

The thermal performance refers to the temperature, relative humidity and air movement within the rooms. The classrooms are non- air conditioned. The acceptable limits are as follows (1996): • Temperature (24–28◦C) • Relative humidity (20–70%) • Average air movement (¡0:8 m=s)

Lighting performance requirements

In school, visual tasks are performed in both horizontal and vertical planes. The recommended design values for lighting in the classrooms, where the activities carried out within are considered to be ‗tasks with simple visual requirements‘, are 500 lux for both horizontal and vertical planes (1987).

Spatial performance requirements

Standards of accommodation for the instructional areas in a school have to be established with due consideration of the teaching methodology adopted. As teaching methods of the conventional or traditional style (i.e. the teacher-centric approach) are prevalent in Singapore schools and as the progressive or non-formal styles or teaching have yet to prove their superiority, the design of classrooms closely follows the traditional model. The educational specification(1972) of a standard secondary school sets out a space norm for 40-seat classrooms of 64 m2, that is, an area per seat of 1:6 m2. According to the Design Handbook(1990), the requirements for spatial quality in a classroom are as follows: (a) Distance between vertical rows of tables —750 mm minimum. (b) Distance between horizontal rows of tables —600 mm minimum. (c) Distance between the 1st row of tables and the chalkboard —3000 mm. (d) Distance between the last row and the back of room — 1700 mm. (e) Distance of the last row from the chalkboard — 7900 mm. (f) Size of tables —480 by 600 mm2.

Acoustic performance requirements

A poor acoustics environment in schools leads to communication problems, annoyance, stress and development of poor conversational habits. A survey, concluded in early 1990 in Singapore, recommended a noise criterion of 55 dB(A) for local schools (Lee 1989a). This level is higher than that recommended by schools in western countries of 25 –40 dB(A) (Lee 1989b) because it A poor acoustics environment in schools leads to communication problems, annoyance, stress and development of poor conversational habits. A survey, concluded in early 1990 in Singapore, recommended a noise criterion of 55 dB(A) for local schools (Lee 1989a). This level is higher than that recommended by schools in western countries of 25 –40 dB(A) (Lee 1989b) because it

Indoor air quality performance requirements

There are many reasons that indoor air quality should be considered to be an important priority in the school environment. One is that the sole purpose of a school facility is to foster the learning process, which is impacted directly by the quality of the indoor environment. Another is that children are still developing physically and are more likely to suffer the consequences of indoor pollutants. The level of carbon dioxide is used to assess the efficiency of ventilation. The acceptable concentration of carbon dioxide for indoors is 1000 ppm according to ENV Guidelines (ENV).One of the most common health complaints from air quality contamination is allergic asthma (Bayer CW 1999). Suspended particulate matter, particularly in the form of chalk dust in classrooms is one of the contributors to asthma occurrence. The recommended maximum concentration for respirable suspended particles is 150 mg=m3 (ENV)

Building integrity performance requirements

Building integrity is based on the knowledge of loads, moisture conditions, temperature shifts, air movement, radiation conditions, biological attack, man-made and natural disasters. A

building‘s integrity has three properties(1985): (a) Mechanical=structural properties —compression, tension, shear, abuse. (b) Physical=chemical properties —water tightness, air tightness, transmission, reflection,

absorption of heat, light and sound energy, fire safety. (c) Visible properties —color, texture, finish, form, durability, maintainability. This performance cannot be measured objectively, but evaluated by means of subjective measurements. In general, in order to satisfy this mandate, a building has to be structurally stable, weather tight, durable, be of good quality construction and meet fire safety requirements

4.0 Subjective Findings And Integrated Design Process (IDP)

From the literature review , it is evident that the study of the learning environment should never

be focused on singular area performance. Rather, the impact of a decision made for one mandate on the other mandates should also be investigated in totality. It is evident through the studies done so far that there is a gap in achieving total building performance leading to non-conducive learning environment. Building Integration with new upcoming technologies such as ICT in Malaysia and emerging trend of smart schools need to catered in the design philosphy of new schools. The design guidelines in Singapore are very comprehensive in nature but they also do not put much required stress on the integration of various building performance mandates . Physical environment of the child whose conduciveness is one of the major factor for child‘s

learning and development in school environment is also not appropriately taken into account. Dealing with so many parametes in a building is not an easy task which pronounceates the need of extensive integrated project management. Integration of design and project management at the onset of project which comes under the umbrella of IDP may provide a suitable solution for the evident gap. IDP may be an alternative process that can be adopted to achieve a perfect balance between requirements of owner , guidelines and TBP along with achieving sustainable targets.

Figure 1: Design Team Involvement Image Source: Busby Perkins + Will and Suntec

IDP and its process

IDP is a method of realizing high performance building that contributes to sustainable communities. It is a collaborative process that focuses on the design, construction, operation and occupancy of a building over its complete life- cycle. IDP is designed to allow the client and other stakeholders to develop and realize clearly defined and challenging functional, environmental and economic goals and objectives. Generally IDP is:

 An iterative process; not a linear approach;  A flexible method – not a formula;

An IDP is the most cost effective way to achieve a high performing building. It addresses issues early on avoiding missed opportunities for performance and economy. Integrated design incorporates multi-disciplinary analysis as well as accountability. Ideally, it includes the following steps:

 Design workshop(s) (known as an eco-charrette) where all design disciplines are represented as well as other stakeholders;

 Analyses that allow iterations of improvement in the design. Examples would include computer simulations or modeling that would test design concepts (example, energy models);  Periodic benchmarking against the goals and objectives throughout the design and construction process;

 Commissioning to ensure the building has been built to the design intent and thus has true potential for achieving green building and high performance benefits.

5.0 Can Idp Be A Solution? :

A Proposed IDP for A Typical School Design

In accordance with the literature review done it may be suggested to follow IDP in a primary/ secondary school to bridge the gaps in implementation and achievement of total building performance.Following steps may be followed in a school under IDP for achieving total building performance as well as energy savings towards sustainability.

Leading the Integrated Design Process

It is essential to have a champion from within the school district (i.e. on the ―owner‘s‖ side) to drive the IDP throughout project delivery (i.e. planning, budgeting, design, construction,

commissioning and startup).The champion/project manager is usually a high-level construction manager or facility director within the school district, or an owner‘s representative. The architect

serves as leader and coordinator.

The following steps describe key points of involvement for the champion of integrated design. The steps are organized as a checklist for each of the traditional phases of design.

Pre-design phase  Commit to an IDP.  Hold a meeting with planning consultants to identify high performance goals, such as ―use

25% less energy use than required by code‖ or ―provide a healthy learning environment.‖  Following CPERS scale to charter a design brief.  Hire design professionals with integrated design experience and high performance project

examples.  Assess adequacy of the school budget and schedule, allow for additional time during

schematic design for integrated design.  Identify roles and responsibilities for team members, including a champion for the IDP process.  Hold a full design charrette with all design team members and school district project manager, as well as building user representatives from the following: facilities maintenance,

teaching staff, parent group, and, if age-appropriate, student body.  Use existing framework(s) to brainstorm strategies you can use to achieve those goals.

existing frameworks include the Singapore school guidelines,LEED/Green Mark for schools, collaborative for high performance schools and ASHR AE‘s advanced energy design guidelines.

 Coordinate this process with the school educational specifications. Ensure no conflicts with high performance goals. (Example,solid walls for classrooms provide space for hanging student projects, but may reduce potential for daylighting.)

 Identify the person who will serve as the commissioning authority for the project.  Determine financial criteria and priorities for school design decisions.  Talk to local utilities, non-profits agencies about available incentives and tax credits.  Ask the design team to gather climate and utility cost data.

Schematic design phase  Refine the school building program and space functions.  Schedule periodic team meetings and support brainstorming and collaborative problem-

solving.  Encourage the designers and engineers to develop design options to reduce loads on building.  Support simplified energy modeling and Life-Cycle cost analysis for school design

alternatives in order to make objective choices between options.  Remind the design team to compare results of this phase to the high performance goals.  Ensure that the commissioning authority works with the owner to document design intent and

owner program requirements.  Complete a preliminary rating/scorecard using the framework applicable to the project. This can be used as a benchmark throughout the project.

Design development phase  Hold regular team meetings to ensure communication among team members. Ensure high performance design is a regular meeting topic.  Evaluate various school building systems for their possible integrated benefits.  Request whole-building energy modeling to confirm the preferred design meets the energy

performance goals, and to confirm eligibility for rating systems, incentives and tax credits.  Update rating document/scorecard as part of benchmarking.  Verify that the school design documents at this stage contain strategies to meet the

performance goals.  Request more detailed cost information from team members to update the schematic cost

model.  Work with the value engineer to ensure functional value of high performance features.

Construction documents  Hold regular team meetings to ensure communication among team members.  Have the commissioning authority and maintenance and operations personnel perform a

document review of building systems.  Update the school cost model and schedule with team input.  Update rating document/scorecard as part of benchmarking.  Request documentation from team.  Verify that the construction documents contain the strategies to meet the performance goals.

Construction phase

 Conduct a construction kick-off meeting with the contractors and subcontractors to secure their commitment to the high performance goals. Point out specific aspects of construction documents that pertain to these goals.

 Ask the architect to carefully review submittals and substitution requests for impact on performance goals.

 At the end of construction and prior to occupancy, allow time for the commissioning authority to complete functional testing and operations & maintenance training.

 Review commissioning report and have contractor address recommended repairs or alterations.

Occupancy

 Establish an ongoing energy management program, including training and periodic re- commissioning.  Use of CPERS scale for POE.

 After the warranty period shakedown, verify that high performance goals were met, assess occupant satisfaction, and share feedback with the whole team.

6.0 Preliminary Findings

In asia pacific region IDP may be termed as a new term although it is in some or other way practised in every project.The paper suggests that IDP may be further comprehensively adopted by the construction industry to achieve better synchronisation among various performace mandates. TBP importance is well understood by the industry and carries significance towards conduciveness in the learning environment.TBP approach along with IDP parameters can be the way to look the things in future. IDP is also considered as synonym for sustainability.Sustainability of the learning environment will enhance the buildability aspects in terms of energy consumption and long-term costs to the facility. These savings will directly and indirectly help in achieving conduciveness through better and optimal designing.

7.0 Recommendations For Further Study

The limitation of this paper are subjective findings based on literature review. It is recommended to further investigate the concerned topic on objective datasets . On similar terms IDP also needs to be further objectively studied for specific project needs in accordance with building performance requirements. Sustainability and its integration with conduciveness in learning environment is also suggested for further research .

References

School building design,Asia . 1972.UNESCO, Colombo: Asian Regional Institute for School Building Research. .Building Diagnostics: A Conceptual Framework. 1985. National Research Council: Building Research Advisory Board,National Academy of Sciences.

CP38: Code of Practice for Artificial Lighting in Buildings. 1987. Design handbook for single session secondary schools . 1990. PWD. Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy . 1996. ASHRAE. Atlanta.

Global relevance of total building performance . Automation in Construction 8:377-393. 1999. Atkin, Brian. 1988. Intelligent Buildings. Bayer, C.W., Crow, S.A., Fischer, J. 1999. Causes of indoor air quality problems in schools,

summary of scientific research .Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Tennessee. B.C., Soon. 1994. Proposed package methodology in evaluating total building performance in

Singapore .School of Building and Estate Management, National University of Singapore. E.N.V. Guidelines for good indoor air quality in office premises.Singapore: Ministry of Environment. Gary, T. Moore, Takemi Sugiyama. 2007. The Chi ldren‘s Physical Environment Rating Scale (CPERS): Reliability and Validity for Assessing the Physical Environment of Early Childhood Educational Facilities . Behaviour and Society Research Group Environment. Australia: University of Sydney.

Hartkopf, V., Loftness, V., Mill, P. 1983. The concept of total building performance building diagnostics . ASTM E6.24:p. 5 –22 Hartkopf, V., Loftness, V., Mill, P.A.D. 1993. Evaluating the quality of the workplace. New York: Nicols Publishing Company. H.M., Tan. 1993. Objective and subjective indoor air quality in Singapore. School of Building and Estate Management, National University of Singapore. K., Lenvik. 1992. Sick building syndrome symptoms —different prevalence‘s between males and females .Environment International:18:11 –17. Lee, S.E., Khew, S.K., Lee, S.F. 1989a. Noise problems in Singapore schools. NUS-PWD. Lee, S.E., Khew, S.K., Lee, S.F. 1989b. Noise problems in Singapore schools.NUS-PWD. Liew, K.P.M., Pang, K.S., Singh, H. 1981. The design of secondary schools — a case study. Educational Building Report Singapore. Moore, G.T. 1994. Early Childhood Physical Environment Observation Schedules and Rating

Scales .USA: University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Raja Ghazilla, R.A., Taha,Z., Kamaruddin, S., Hasanuddin, I. 2010. Pilot Investigation on the

Mismatches of Classroom Furniture and Student Body Dimensions in Malaysian Secondary Schools . Journal of Social Sciences 6 (2): 287-292.

Shaw, C.Y., Vaculik, F., Patton, D.W., Comeau, G.M. 1990. Indoor air quality guide for property managers in office buildings . Building Technology and Management. W.F.E, Preiser, ed. 1989. Building evaluation. New York: Plenum. Wong, N.H., Jan, W.L.S. 2003. Total building performance evaluation of academic institution in

Singapore . Building and Environment 38(1):161-176. Wood, J.E., Morey, P.R., Rask, D.R. 1989. Indoor air quality diagnostics:qualitative and quantitative procedures to improve environmental conditions . Design and Protocol for Monitoring Indoor Air Quality:80 –98.