عنوان مقاله [English]
Learning spaces are one of the most important spaces that greatly influence the children’s learning process as they spend considerable amount of their daily time inside these spaces. Among different types of learning spaces, both open and closed are of significant importance; in addition, the connection between these two complementary spaces is also an important factor. Connection between these two spaces depends on internal occupancy, different activities that take place inside the space and the level of dynamism and liveliness in these spaces. How the closed and open spaces in a school are connected to each other determines the arrangement of learning spaces. One of the most important spaces in a school are its classrooms; thus, since there are typically great number of classrooms in a school, therefore how the classrooms are connected to open spaces and also their overall arrangement plays a major role in designing spaces at schools. Design of learning spaces with emphasis on space arrangement is one of the approaches used in the design of learning space. Due to prevalence of two models (linear model and central yard model) during the evolution of Iranian school architecture, these two models have been investigated in this study among many other arrangements applied to school’s spaces. Furthermore, accomplishing the design principles for these models which determine connection type of classrooms with the open spaces has also been examined. Finally, efficient design models were proposed for these two arrangements. In order to obtain the principles relating to the efficient space connections and to study different space arrangements, rational reasoning method was employed.There are many types of exterior spaces in schools with different kinds of occupancy.Previous studies have only focused on importance of presence of exterior spaces beside internal leaning spaces in schools as well as importance of connection between internal and external spaces; however, no studies have ever mentioned the different types of internal and external spaces, their arrangements in relation to each other and their connection types with respect to each other. Also, no model has ever been developed for designing the space connection type, and its limits and boundaries. Since there are many possible ways to connect two spaces, a spectrum can be defined for different types of space connection which starts from perfect connection and ends with total disconnection. Connections between internal and external spaces in a school can also result in arrangement of learning spaces. Spatial school arrangement is one of the approaches for designing learning spaces and also various models have been proposed for spatial arrangement in schools. This article is an attempt to introduce an efficient model for connections between classroom and other external spaces in a school and make some suggestions for conventional spatial arrangements for Iranian schools.According to previous studies, external spaces in schools were classified into three spaces: external natural space, external learning space, external sport and social space.Based on design principles for learning spaces and arrangement of active and non-active (passive) spaces close to one another in schools, following three principals wereintroduced: 1) connection between school’s internal spaces and external natural spaces,2) disconnection (separation) between internal space and external space with different function in terms of level of activity, such as connection between classroom and externalsport and social spaces, 3) a state between total connection and disconnection (separation) between internal and external spaces with small difference in terms of crowdedness and activity as well as functional similarity between two spaces such as connection between classrooms and external learning spaces. Based on different existing space arrangements in schools and connection types between internal and external spaces in schools, two most common types of arrangement formed during the evolution of Iranian architecture were investigated according to the above mentioned connection principles in order to propose an efficient model for spatial arrangement based on these two models and take into account the three aforementioned principles. Therefore, these three connection principles can be applied to both arrangement models through devising an exterior green band around boundaries of the classrooms, placing learning balconies between the classrooms and external learning spaces, designing two separated yards (learning yard and sport and social activity yard) located at two opposite extremes of the school, and also providing access to external sport and social activity spaces via corridors behind the classrooms.Moreover, positive features of Iranian school architecture regarding to the connection between open and closed spaces, have been explained in the article as direct access from classrooms to learning yard, designing three types of closed and covered spaces within spatial arrangement, providing internal learning yards, importance of including porch in school plan and importance of yards as the heart of school’s activities have all been included into both of the arrangements.
-- Brubaker, C. W. (1998). Planning and Designing Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
-- Caudill, W. (1954). Toward Better School Design, An Architectural Record Book, New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation.
-- Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and Education. London: Collier-Macmillan.
-- Groter, Y. (1995). Aesthetics in Architecture, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Publication.
-- Haeri, M. R. (1998). Epistemology of Iranian Architecture, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, Vol. 51, 52.
-- Haeri, M. R. (2009). House in Culture and Nature of Iran, Tehran: Architecture and Urban Development Research
-- Higgins, P. & Nicol, R. (2002). Outdoor Education: Authentic Learning in the Context of Landscapes, Vol. 2.
-- Kamelnia, H. (2007). Design Grammar of Learning Environments, Sobhane Noor Publication.
-- Lackney, J.A. (1998). Twelve Design Principles Based on Brain-Based Research: A Summary from a Workshop
Conducted at the Midwest/Great Lakes Regional Council of Educational Facility Planners International Conference
-- Lackney, J.A. (2000). Thirty-three Educational Design Principles for Schools and Community Learning Centers.
National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), Washington,
-- Moore, G. T. & Lackney, J. A. (1994). Educational Facilities for the Twenty-First Century: Research Analysis and
Design Patterns. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, the School of Architectural and Urban Planning.
-- Mozafar, F., Mahdizadeh seraj, F. & Mirmoradi, S.S. (2009). Recognition of the Role of Nature in Educational
Spaces, Journal of Technology of Education, 4(1).
-- Norberg Schulz, CH. (1971). Existence, Space and Architecture, London: Praeger Publishers.
-- Pasalar, C. (2003). The Effects of Spatial Layouts on Students’ Interactions in Middle Schools: Multiple Case
Analysis, PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University.
-- Parkash, N. (2005). Fielding. Randall, The Language of School Design, NCEF.
-- Perkins, B. (2001). Building Type Basics for Elementary and Secondary Schools. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
-- Rush, R.D. (1986). The Building Systems Integration Handbook, The American Institute of Architects, Reed Publishing,
Inc., Stoneham, A.
-- Sami Azar, A. (1996). The Development of Schools in Iran. State Organization of Schools Renovation, Development
and Mobilization Publication.
-- Saremi, A. A. & Radmard, T. (1996). Enduring Values in Iranian Architecture, National Heritage Organization Publication. Tehran.