A Comparison of Classrooms’ Layout Based on The Requirements of Preschool Literacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2019.71Keywords:
Learning environment, literacy activities, physical characteristics, preschool classroom, visual characteristicsAbstract
Classroom design has claimed to be an important factor in supporting the pre-schoolers’ literacy development. While many studies had focused on improving the overall environment of the classrooms, few studies are established with the focus on design characteristics that enhance early literacy. Comparative studies that reveal similarities and differences of design in different contexts and culture would be a significant attempt to provide a knowledge about the proper physical environment for literacy. This study is set out to compare the appropriateness of classroom design in two private and two public preschools in North Cyprus, by evaluating the necessary design characteristics for literacy activities. The study proceeds by developing an evaluation framework that analyses the design characteristics of classroom in terms of literacy learning, then followed by evaluating the design of each classroom by using this framework. The study is finalized by comparing the findings and discussing the similarities and differences of design in examined classrooms. Findings revealed that the layout of private classrooms were more literacy-oriented in compare to public classrooms, however in none of the classrooms there was any records of specific design considerations with the focus of literacy. In general, it was concluded that in all four classrooms layout of the classrooms lacked a sensitive design with concern of literacy activities. Results also demonstrated that only focusing on classroom will not be enough and considering the support for learning literacy in all the available spaces in preschool will establish more comprehensive results.
Metrics
References
Albers, P., Holbrook, T., & Flint, A. S. (2014). New methods of literacy research. New York: Routledge.
Beschorner, B. & Hutchison, A. (2013). iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(1), 16-24.
Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces re-thinking the architecture of post-compulsory education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ciampa, K. (2012). Reading in the digital age: Using electronic books as a teaching tool for beginning readers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(2).
Cortes, C., (2013). Designing literacy rich classroom environments for young children: a study of teachers' design processes and tools, Arizona State University.
Cunningham, D. D. (2005). Relating quality of urban, public school, preschool classroom environments to the language and literacy development of at-risk pre- school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, St. Louis.
Cunningham, D. D. (2008). Literacy Environment Quality in Preschool and Children’s Attitudes Toward Reading and Writing. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 19-36.
Dickinson, D. K., & Sprague, K. (2002). The nature and impact of early child- hood care environments on the language and literacy development of chil- dren from low-income families. In S. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for early literacy research (pp. 263–280). New York: Guilford Press.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice, Optimal Books.
Graff, H. (1991). The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hart, B., & Risby, T. (1995). Meaningful difference in the everyday lives of young American children. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing.
Hille, R. (2011). Modern schools: A century of design for education. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.
Izadpanah, S. & Günçe, K. (2014). Integration of Educational Method and Physical Settings: Design Guideline for High/Scope Methodology in Preschool, South African Journal of Education, 34(2). 1-17.
Izadpanah, S. (2016). A Post Occupancy Quality Evaluation Model for Preschool Settings’ Interior Spaces (PSIS) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eastern Mediterranean University.
Könings, K. D., Brand‐Gruwel S. & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Lawn, M. (1999). Designing teaching: the classroom as a technology. In I. Grosvenor, M. Lawn & K. Rousmaniere (Eds.), Silences and Images: The social history of the classroom. New York: Peter Lang.
Lonigan, C. J., Allan, N. P., & Lerner, M. D. (2011). Assessment of Preschool Early Literacy Skills: Linking Children’s Educational Needs with Empirically Supported Instructional Activities. Psychol Sch, 48(5), 488-501.
Lundquist, P., Kjellberg, A., & Holmberg, K. (2002). Evaluating effects of the classroom environment: Development of an instrument for the measurement of self-reported mood among school children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 289-293.
Marrow, L.M. (1990). Preparing the Classroom Environment to Promote Literacy During Play, Eraly Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 537-554.
Maxwell, L. E., & Evans, G. W. (2000). The effects of noise on pre-school children's pre-reading skills. Journal of Environmental Psychology,20 (1), 91-97.
McGee, Lea M., and Lesley Mandel. Morrow. Teaching Literacy in Kindergarten. New York: Guilford, 2005. Print.
Morrow, L. M. (2002). The literacy center: contexts for reading and writing. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse.
Morrow, L. M., Roskos, K., & Gambrell, L. B. (2015). Oral language and comprehension in preschool: Teaching the essentials. New York: Guilford Publications.
Nichols, S. & Nixon, H. (2013). Space, place and early childhood literacy. In J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Nichols, S. (2011). Young children's literacy in the activity space of the library: A geosemiotic investigation. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(2), 164-189. doi:10.1177/1468798411399275
Nichols, S. (2014). Geosemiotics. In P. Albers, T. Holbrook, & A. Flint (Eds.), New Methods of Literacy Research (pp. 177-192). New York: Routledge.
Nicole, S. (2013). Geosemiotics. In T. Holbrook, A. Flint, & P. Albers (Eds.), New Methods of Literacy Research. New York: Routledge.
Rainbird, S., & Rowsell, J. (2011). 'Literacy nooks': Geosemiotics and domains of literacy in home spaces. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(2), 214-231. doi:10.1177/1468798411401865
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material word. London: Routledge.
Södersten M., Granqvist, S., Hammarberg B., & Szabo A. (2002). Vocal behavior and vocal loading factors for preschool teachers at work studied with binaural DAT recordings. Journal of Voice, 16 (3), 356-371.
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London; New York: Longman.
Verhallen, M., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410-419.
Wood, E., Specht J., Willoughby T., & Mueller J. (2008). Integrating computer technology in early childhood environments: Issues raised by early childhood educators. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 210-226.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 