THE REFLECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SCHOOL ARCHITECTURE ON CHILDREN’S PERCEPTION: THE CASE OF KAGITHANE

Year 2019, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 51 - 61, 01.04.2019

Ahmet Türel , Hande Asar Özlem Tepelı̇

Abstract

School buildings are one of the first public spaces where children feel themselves safe, well-being and fulfil their social needs. In this context, secondary school buildings, which are currently used in our country, have been discussing qualitatively for many years. Therefore, the focus point of this study is about the relationship between the buildings of education and their place in children’ perception. The question that constitutes the purpose of the study is as follows: What is the effect of school buildings’ physical conditions on children perception? Within this scope, İstanbul Kagithane region was selected as a case study and secondary school buildings in different typologies were examined. The first one of these typologies is the schools which were built by the Ministry of National Education with the same characteristics. The other is the schools that designed by Uygur Architecture. These schools were planned to be prepared for the possible earthquake of Istanbul and to be reconstructed in the context of “Istanbul Seismic Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness Project”. As a sample, Secondary School of Cengizhan was selected for the first typology and also Secondary School of Ahmet Cuhadaroglu was selected for the second typology. Selected schools were evaluated in terms of practice, user satisfaction and user perception. For this, questionnaire and mapping technique were applied as the method and the obtained data were interpreted over the selected evaluation criteria. The questionnaire and cognitive mapping study was conducted at the secondary schools with a total of 206 students aged 9 to 13 years. Cognitive maps were evaluated with projective, metric and imaginative space parameters. As a result, it is supported by cognitive mapping studies that spatial perceptions of students are directly related to the exterior and interior of building. Therefore, it is considered that the evaluation criteria and the obtained data from this study may be the support for the further research

Keywords

Spatial Perception, Secondary Schools, Cognitive Development, Children Perception, School ArchitectureWordcount: 4.192

References

• BANNING, J. H. & CANARD, M. R. 1986. The physical environment supports student development. Campus Ecologist, 4, 1-3.
• CÜCELOĞLU, D. 2015. İnsan ve davranışı (Human and behavior), İstanbul, Remzi Kitabevi.
• DAVID, T. G. & WEINSTEIN, C. S. 1987. The built environment and children’s development. Spaces for Children. Springer.
• DEWEY, J. 2004. Democracy and education, Courier Corporation.
• EARTHMAN, G. & LEMASTERS, L. 1996. Review of research on the relationship between school buildings, student achievement, and student Behavior, the Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, October 8, 1996, Council of Educational Facility Planners, Tarpon Springs, FL.
• EVANS, G. W. 2004. The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77.
• FAWCETT, M., & HAY, P. 2004. 5x5x5 = Creativity in the early years, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 23(3), 234-45.
• HART, R. A. & MOORE, G. T. 1973. The development of spatial cognition: a review, AldineTransaction.
• KARABEY, H. & AKAY, Z. 2004. Eğitim yapıları: geleceğin okullarını planlamak ve tasarlamak çağdaş yaklaşımlar, ilkeler (Educational structures: planning and designing the schools of the future, contemporary approaches, principles), Literatür Yayıncılık.
• LANG, J. T. 1987. Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design, Van Nostrand Reinhold New York.
• MORGAN, P. L., FARKAS, G., HILLEMEIER, M. M. & MACZUGA, S. 2009. Risk factors for learning-related behavior problems at 24 months of age: Population-based estimates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 401.
• PIAGET, J. 1964. Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.
• PIAGET, J. & INHELDER, B. 2016. Cocuk psikolojisi (Child psychology), İstanbul, Pinhan Yayincilik.
• PULASKI, M. A. S. 1971. Understanding Piaget: An introduction to children’s cognitive development, Psyccritiques, 17(10), 563.
• READ, M. A., SUGAWARA, A. I. & BRANDT, J. A. 1999. Impact of space and color in the physical environment on preschool children’s cooperative behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31, 413-428.
• ROCK, I. & PALMER, S. 1990. The legacy of Gestalt psychology. Scientific American, 263, 84-91.
• SANOFF, H. 1994. School Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York.
• ŞENER, E. A. 2001. Okul öncesi çocuk eğitim merkezi için değişebilir / dönüşebilir / esnek bir “fiziksel çevre modeli” (A changeable / transformable / flexible “physical environment model” for child development centers). Doctoral, Istanbul Technical University.
• TÜREL, A. 2017. İlkokul fiziksel çevresinin çocuğun mekansal algısına ve davranışına etkisi: kagithane örneği (Effects of Physical Environment of Primary School on Children’s Spatial Perception and Behavior: The Case of Kağithane) (Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Elmira Gür). Unpublished master thesis, Istanbul Technical University.
• ÜNLÜ, A. 1998. Çevresel tasarımda ilk kavramlar (First concepts in environmental design), Istanbul Technical University.
• YAVUZER, H. 2003. Çocuğu tanımak ve anlamak (To recognize and understand the child). İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.