Autism and Architecture by cperriam

Autism & Architecture How can informed design help to improve the sensory experience of those on the autism spectrum in educational buildings in the UK?

CHARLES PERRIAM 180208070

I would like to give special thanks to the staff at Woodlands Centre for Autism in London and Mossbrook School in Sheffield. Without their participation this study would not have been possible. Special thanks also to Professor Karim Hadjri. Your guidance during the course of my research has been invaluable and I have very much enjoyed working with you. Finally, thank you to Richard Rothwell for his proof reading skills and to Kat Haycock for your continued support, as always.

This dissertation builds upon a preliminary document submitted by me in April 2019. Some chapters contain original content from this previous document.

Word Count: 6568 Not including titles, references, footnotes, image captions, bibliography or appendices.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

C H A P T E R 2 - L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 4 - CASE STUDY A:

THE WOODLANDS CENTRE FOR A U T I S M AT N E T L E Y PRIMARY SCHOOL

Focus Groups Post Occupancy Evaluation Phenomenology

32 40 48

CHAPTER 5 - CASE STUDY B:

MOSSBROOK SCHOOL

Focus Groups Post Occupancy Evaluation Phenomenology

54 62 68

CHAPTER 6 - DISCUSSION

CHAPTER 7 - REFLECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IMAGE REFERENCES

APPENDICES

89 5

“I used to be afraid that as long as I was autistic, I’d never be able to live properly as a human being. There were so many things I couldn’t do like other people, and having to apologise day in, day out totally drained me of hope” -Naoki Higashida

Chapter 1 Introduction

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO AUTISM With around 700,000 people currently living on the autistic spectrum in the UK, it is estimated that autism is a part of daily life for around 2.8 million people throughout the country.1 Detailed assessments are required for a diagnosis by the NHS, highlighting the likelihood that these figures might even underestimate the prominence of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) at the current time, with the potential for thousands showing symptoms to remain undiagnosed. Autism is a developmental condition that affects how people make sense of the world around them.2 By its very nature as a spectrum condition there will be variance in the severity of each personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s symptoms and characteristics. The Autism Education Trust outlines four key areas of difficulty for most of those living on the autism spectrum, these are: social understanding, sensory processing, information processing and communication.3 My proximity to friends and family members with diagnoses on the autistic spectrum certainly highlights the scale of the task that faces us in creating a society that is truly inclusive to those living with this condition.

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Reality to an autistic person is a confusing, interacting mass of events, people, places, sounds and sights. There seems to be no clear boundaries, order or meaning to anything. A large part of their life is spent just trying to work out the pattern behind everythingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 4 Often, people with ASD describe the problems they face in everyday situations such as walking down the local high street, or even attending school. This indicates the need for improved support to ensure that people on the autism spectrum are able to achieve their potential. Some encouraging steps have been made towards this goal, with the Department of Health and Social Care announcing plans to introduce an updated national autism strategy in autumn 2019.5

AUTISM AND SCHOOLS IN THE UK Through the Government’s free school agenda, a number of organisations including the National Autistic Society have been able to set up autism specific-education facilities throughout the UK. As well as this, a small number of state funded community schools have received provision from local authorities for new facilities specifically geared towards users with ASD. Many of these have been in operation for several years, with little or no investigations conducted into their suitability for the task. This study will investigate the relationship between the built environment and the needs of those with ASD in an educational setting. It aims to raise awareness of the extra sensory dimension that physical spaces can have when perceived through the eyes of users on the autism spectrum, something that is often under-represented within the notion of ‘accessibility’ in design.

‘Environments designed and created specifically for children with ASD clearly have a beneficial impact not only on the children themselves but also upon those who care for them. This intricate interplay and delicate balance between environmental factors and human factors converge to create a space where children can be children – not just children with a disability’ 6

National Autistic Society, ‘About Autism’, National Autistic Society, 2018 <www.autism.org.uk/ about> [accessed 12/03/19]. 1

Reid, B, We’ve Got Great Expectations: The Chance of a Lifetime for Children with Autism,

National Autistic Society, 2011, <www.autism.org.uk>, pp.4.

Autism Education Trust, ‘What Is Autism?’, Autism Education Trust, 2019 <www. autismeducationtrust.org.uk/what-is-autism> [accessed 12/03/19]. 3

Rachna Khare and Abir Mullick, Educational Spaces for Children with Autism; Design Development Process, 2008, CIB W 084 Proceedings, Building Comfortable and Liveable Environments for All, Atlanta USA, pp. 66. 4

Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government, <www.gov.uk/health-and-social-care> [accessed 12/03/19]. 5

Teresa Whitehurst, The Impact of Building Design on Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders,

Good Autism Practice, 2006, Vol 7(1), pp.38.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

In this section I will discuss a number of studies relating to the design of architectural space for autistic users. It is worth considering that existing literature in this field remains quite scarce, with our understanding of ASD in relation to physical space still developing. Mostafa (2008) as well as Khare and Mullick (2009) employ a very scientific method of investigation; seeking to analyse architectural impact on autistic behaviour through the development of quantitative numerical data. It is clear that both see their work as preliminary knowledge that has come about in response to the ‘exclusion’ of autistic needs in design codes of practice worldwide. They use the lack of existing research as justification for the generalisations their studies make through their quantitative analysis of human behaviour in response to architectural characteristics that have been deemed ‘most likely’ to have an impact on autistic children. Mostafa (2008) clearly highlights the positive impact that specific considerations of acoustic control and intuitive spatial compartmentalisation can have on an autistic child’s ability to engage in learning environments. The idea of ‘universal design’ is introduced by Khare and Mullick (2009) whereby a physical environment is considered for everybody in order to minimise the segregation that people with ASD can sometimes face.

Soundproof speech space gives ‘promising indications’ of improvement of attention span, response time and behavioural temperament

Sensory zoning found to be more effective than functional zoning

Compartmentalised space creates ‘separate defined zones’ helping reduce distraction and improve productivity

AY LD

OO SCH

Compartmentalisation allows spatial efficiency with multiple activities occurring in the same room. It also allows each area to cater specifically for the activity it is hosting. ‘Universal’ spaces should be avoided as they can be overwhelming and unpredictable.

Providing a visible ‘option to escape’ positively influences behaviour of participants and results in less use of the escape spaces themselves

Arrangement of spaces to allow one-way circulation according to the daily schedule is seen to be positive

Figure 1 - An interpretation of the key points made in a study by Mostafa (2008)

Similarly motivated by the lack of inclusion of those with ‘less visible’ disabilities into the idea of ‘accessibility’ in the built environment, Sánchez, Vázquez and Serrano (2011) discuss the advantages brought about by a greater understanding of both physical space and its autistic users. They believe a good understanding of ASD is essential if the implications of architectural space on those with autism is to be fully understood. Studies by Beaver (2011), Humphreys (2005) and Whitehurst (2006), are rooted in a more personal understanding of the condition (whether this be through friends, family or work), and use this as a basis upon which to compile and adapt their own hypotheses. Often, discussions are centred around the general themes of adequate natural lighting and good ventilation, suggesting no more than is expected of any piece of architecture. The relative depth of the research of Sánchez, Vázquez and Serrano (2011) ultimately results in a discussion that covers similar themes to the remainder of Beaver (2011) and Humphreys’ (2005) work: mental processes, social interaction, sensory perception and safety. This leads to similar recommendations of generous provision of space, ‘robust’ finishing and improving the ‘predictability’ of environments. Studies such as these use their research to highlight instances of good and bad practice, reiterating the importance that ‘mandatory’ future studies around this topic continue to do the same.

The visual background is recommended to be as neutral and decluttered as possible to limit distraction and sensory challenges

Opportunities for diffuse and natural lighing should be maximised

Durable fixings added bearing in mind the possibility of eventual abuse

Spaces need to be ‘readable, predictable and imaginable’ to minimise nervousness that results from a limited ability to imagine. This can be done by colour coding doors or providing graphical cues to what the user will find inside.

‘Snoezelen’ rooms (multisensory stimulation spaces) can help people with ASD to ‘attune their sensory perception’

Figure 2 - An interpretation of the key points made in a study by Sanchez, Vazquez and Serrano (2011)

Motivated by the lack of personal focus shown by previous research, Kinnaer, Baumers and Heylighen (2016) introduce a unique methodology. Existing guidelines on the subject are interrogated with reference to the insights and viewpoints provided by six autobiographies written by those with ASD. Whilst I support the methodology that this study is advocating, only six viewpoints cannot accurately represent the entirety of the autism spectrum. This is not to disregard the conclusions completely, with many of the theories interrogated aligning well with views expressed in the autobiographies, a testament to the quality of research up to now. The value in this study is revealed when looking to the opinions expressed in the autobiographies to provide a more nuanced view of what the physical environment can mean from the perspective of people on the autism spectrum rather than reducing this to scientific data or concrete guidelines.

Visual links with familiar external features (e.g. landmarks) helps with the perception that things are still ordered the same way

Elements of spaces should be designed to be replaced easily (e.g. carpet tiles) as durable materials and fixings can create ‘impersonal environments’

Every space needs a clear function to allow a ‘fixed place’ for activities to occur. If this is not the case there is a risk of lack of engagement.

Material environment should be ‘predictable, comprehensible and controllable’ in a world that can be anything but. Solid elements of buildings provide reassurance both physically and mentally.

‘Everything in its place’ doesn’t necessarily mean hidden away neatly. Some with ASD need posessions on display this represents a huge part of who they are.

Stimulating sensory spaces and less stimulating escape spaces account for occurrances of hypo and hyper sensitivity. Beneficial to be completely separate from main space (perhaps on a slightly different level).

Figure 3 - An interpretation of the key points made in a study by Kinnaer, Baumers and Heylighen (2016)

Chapter 3 Methodology

This study is based on the analysis of two case studies. As the ‘autism specific’ spaces form part of a larger school in both instances, linking back to the idea of ‘universal design’ and the integration of children with ASD into mainstream education, this formed the primary basis for the selection of these particular case studies. The two case studies were examined using three methods in order to ensure multi-dimensional analysis, contributing to a deeper discussion.

FOCUS GROUPS Semi-structured discussions with teachers at the case study schools gathered feedback on the relationship between the children and their environment. The aim was to develop an insight into the effect of sensory stimulus such as light, sound and temperature as well as architectural form and materiality on the behaviour, attention span and perceived happiness of the children. Due to ethical considerations and sensitivity to the fact that those with ASD can find communication challenging and stressful, it was decided that no contact would be made with the children.

P O S T O C C U PA N C Y E V A L U AT I O N The POE, carried out during visits to both case studies in June and July, uses observation in an attempt to determine how each space is used. It looked to quantify sensory qualities of the architecture such as light levels, sounds, smells, tactility, temperature, materiality, robustness and size of space so the results can be analysed against the hypotheses of previous studies as well as the data gathered from the focus groups.

P H E N O M E N O L O G I C A L A N A LY S I S My own phenomenological account was recorded during the visit of each case study. A valuable tool in beginning to understand the experiences and problems that people with ASD might be experiencing in a certain architectural space, this helped to analyse the effect of each space with respect to a human user, bringing a personal sensory focus back to the discussions.

T R I A N G U L AT I O N

US GROU C P FO

POE

- Analysed in discussion

O M E N O LO

Figure 4 - The process of triangulation whereby themes were identified from the data gathered from the three methods of investigation. These were brought together with common themes forming the basis of dicussions and analysis to follow.

Chapter 4 Case Study A: The Woodlands Centre for Autism at Netley Primary School

INTRODUCTION TO THE BUILDING The Woodlands Centre for Autism is a specialised resource base for children with diagnoses on the autism spectrum, located on the Netley Campus in the London Borough of Camden. With places for 24 children between the ages of 3 and 11, the building consists of one specially designed learning space for children with autism, and two adapted classrooms previously used as an adult learning centre.

Figure 5 - A sketch representation of the Woodlands Centre for Autism

TEACHER FOCUS GROUP The focus group at Woodlands involved gathering the opinions of four members of staff, each with several years experience working at the centre. Control Access Blinds Escape

PLAYGROUND

Distraction

Control

Views

Hot Box

Distraction

Natural Light

Corners

Safety

Doors

CLASSROOM

Quiet Time

Adaptable

Adapted Classrooms

Lights

Sound Dampening

Columns

IIII

Flexibility

Loud

Separation

Distraction

Distraction Reduced

Distraction

Exploration

Noise

Funding II

IIII

Size Self Regulation

CHILDREN

Safety

Walls

Quiet/Safe Space

III

Noise

IIIII

Curved Control

Coping Strategy

III Self Regulation

SENSORY Self Regulation

SEN

Heating

Limited Control

Sensory Room Awareness Safety

Figure 6 - Thematic analysis of the focus group conversation at Woodlands. Looking at the movement of the discussion as well as the frequency that themes were touched upon.

“She has a lot of sensory processing difficulties and will tell you that the lights in her classroom are really loud...” Participant A.1

Highlighting the topic covered most frequently revealed the emphasis this particular school places on good natural lighting. Conversations largely followed the pattern of recommendations in existing studies; with a large window wall and ceiling lights in the purpose built classroom providing ample natural lighting for the activities occurring within it, while the low ceilings and small openings mean the adapted classroom “doesn’t have a lot of natural light” according to Participant A.2, and is reliant on artificial lights that buzz. As implied by Participant A.1 this can cause significant disturbance to both the staff and the children, with the distractions these subtle noises can cause to those who are hyper-sensitive not difficult to imagine. Skylights, such as those present in the purpose built classroom, are clearly favoured by the staff not only for allowing plenty of natural light into the room but also limiting views out into the immediate surroundings, such as the playground, that the children can often find distracting.

“A few of our children don’t really show that they feel the heat, they won’t take their jumpers off and clearly they’re hot... I hate being hot and it makes me feel awful so it’s probably more likely to be me to go ‘let’s go outside’” Participant A.3

Whilst higher levels of natural lighting are generally seen as positive, it is important to minimise the potential problem of “hot boxing” that comes with the addition of large glazed openings, such as the large west-facing window wall at Woodlands. Participant A.3 suggests that children with sensory processing issues are not always able to tell if they are too hot, and having the ability to communicate this is yet another challenge to overcome. Control over the environment becomes a huge consideration when it comes to temperature in schools such as this, with staff also talking about issues with the building’s mechanical heating system causing lack of comfort on their own part. The importance of this is amplified when considering the influence this can have on an autistic child’s ability to be comfortable in that same environment.7

“I think some of them can get that feedback from being pressed between the wall and this pole... you hear some of the children ringing it and getting some exploration out of the room” Participant A.3

It was interesting to find that the metal columns present in the classrooms provide a good opportunity for sensory exploration by the children. Participant A.3 recounts the tendency of a number of children to “ring” or knock loudly on the metal surface in order to produce the “resonant metal sound”. This suggests that material palettes do not have to be unstimulating, as is so often recommended in previous research to avoid the ‘disturbances’ that come with varied and stimulating material or colour palettes.8 It is exciting to imagine an environment full of opportunities for tactile sensory exploration, allowing children to engage in a different type of learning.

“A lot of the children will go into a corner so that nobody is behind their back. Or a lot of the children will go into the quiet room or put themselves in a cupboard. So I do think that control over your space and being able to be in a smaller quiet space if you want to is really important” Participant A.1

According to staff at Woodlands, a main threat to an autistic child’s safety is their tendency to “escalate” when overwhelmed or unable to regulate their senses. Participant A.1 explained some of the adaptations that have been made to the physical environment with this in mind, the most important of these being the minimisation of hard surfaces or sharp edges in the building, features that could have been considered as part of the building’s original design. Woodlands also place great emphasis on the inclusion of “quiet, small spaces” in their building. Helping children “deescalate”, these ‘sensory rooms’ (Snoezelen), or small separate spaces within the classroom are invaluable to the safety of children and those around them.

“I think you need… a separate space for your group work and a separate space for conversation and you have really separate spaces for different things and I think you need to be flexible with that. You need to change the space sometimes. But it does need to be visually like: ‘this is where we do this’.” Participant A.2

Participant A.2 outlines the need for flexible visual separation of activities within a learning space, echoing the advocation of ‘visual’ boundaries to help children ‘understand the structure of the school day’.9 With flexibility meaning that an environment can be easily changed to best suit the needs of the activity or child, this appears to be a good way of optimising a space for use by children who can be easily distracted or disturbed.

“So many of the children, when they’re walking through doors, they stop and cover their ears and wait for the door to close because they’re anticipating the sound of it... its actually a good coping strategy because you can’t control doors everywhere” Participant A.1

It was interesting to discuss the imperfections that exist in the building’s design and how these are potentially seen as positive “coping strategies” that can minimise the chances of escalations happening in the first place. The main example used by Participant A.1 was the large, heavy doors in the school that tend to slam shut. Interestingly, children have learned to “cover their ears and wait for the door to close because they’re anticipating the sound of it”, behaviour that is seen as very positive by the staff in terms of preparing them for life outside the school.

Teresa Whitehurst, The Impact of Building Design on Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders,

Good Autism Practice, 2006, Vol 7(1), pp.36. 8

Christopher Beaver, Designing Environments for Children and Adults with ASD, Good Autism

Practice, January 2011, Vol.12(1), pp.10.

Lynn Plimley and Maggie Bowen, Autistic Spectrum Disorders in the Secondary School (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2006). 9

P O S T O C C U PA N C Y E V A L U AT I O N Sanchez, Vazquez and Serrano (2011) advocated the inclusion of a variety of space sizes in order to aid the social skills of children with autism by allowing them necessary spaces for different kinds of interactions, whilst also allowing them space to ‘retire’ when ‘overcome by a socially demanding situation’.10 What is noticeable at Woodlands is the comparison between the purpose built classroom, which contains a separate escape space in line with this recommendation, and the adapted classroom with much less permanent pockets of space. This indicates the usefulness of providing spaces that vary in atmosphere as a result of their size, helping children when they struggle to process larger, more populated spaces. Additionally, both large classrooms have been divided into clear, smaller sections through the careful positioning of furniture, indicating the preference for classroom activities to be carried out in spaces that are at least perceived to be smaller.

Darker classroom so more reliant on lights

Lower ceilings mean less resonant noise in the

Figure 7 - The escape space in the room purpose built classroom

2m space at the edge of the room is separated Padding around column to by reduce noise a low level partition

Ceiling lights produce more diffuse light and no

Curtain added to further separate the space at the edge Curtain added to separate space for at thedifferent edge of the room to completely zone off for activities different activities like eating

Small west facing windows donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t let much

Figure 8 - Less permanent spatial zoning in the adapted buzzing natural light in classroom Toilets act as visible option to escape

More personality added by more displays

2m space at the edge of the room is separated by a low level, permanent partition

Furniture positioned to create clear zones in the room

Figure 9 - The adapted classroom Walls lean outwards and curve Furniture arranged to create zones for different activities in large room

Corners created by curved walls for children to hide in

The POE highlighted the disparity between natural light levels in the purpose built and adapted spaces. With four very small square windows and a low ceiling in a typical adapted classroom, the space was very dark even on a bright summer afternoon. Conversely, the large west facing window wall and skylights in the purpose built classroom created a room that was extremely well lit, with no need for supplementary artificial lighting. It is important to also note the disparity in temperature, with the light purpose built classroom much warmer than the adapted classroom. With the study being carried out in the summer excessive heat gain is naturally seen as a negative; it remains to be seen how this is viewed in the winter.

Lower ceilings mean less resonant noise in the room

Ceiling lights produce more diffuse light and no buzzing

Small west facing windows donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t let much natural light in

Ceiling lights produce more diffuse light and no buzzing Small west facing windows donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t let much natural light in Low ceiling height Rooflights get more natural light into the classroom

Colourful displays add personality

Supplementary strip lighting buzzes

Figure 10 - The adapted classroom Rooflights get more natural light into the classroom

Walls lean outwards and curve Furniture arranged to create zones for different activities in large room

Ledges are a safety hazard for small children

Corners created by curved walls for children to hide in

Fluorescent artificial lighting not needed

Figure 11 - The purpose built classroom Two handles on doors limit access to those below a certain height

Vast open floor space allows for flexibility in the way the space is used but also feels empty and impersonal

The interior of Woodlands is characterised by white walls and ceilings with very little material variation in line with the neutrality that is often advocated to reduce stimulation. Attempts have been made across the building to add personality through the addition of brightly coloured visual displays and tactile adaptations such as textural rugs, ignoring the tendency for these to encourage ‘challenging behaviour and confrontation’ through the opportunity for children to ‘rip them, enjoying the tactile, sensory effect’.11 This suggests a total avoidance of stimulating sensory experiences as part of the architecture is seen as a missed opportunity in this instance, with displays placed to minimise the risk of misbehaviour and instead provide the opportunity for ‘consistent tactile stimulation’ for those that need it.12

Displays add personality to the otherwise neutral environment. They are often placed higher up on the walls.

Figure 12 - Displays on the walls at Woodlands

Textural rugs add tactility to the classroom spaces.

Figure 13 - Textural rug in the classroom

Kinnear, Baumers and Heylighen (2016) suggested that maintaining views of familiar external features helps with the perception that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;things are still ordered the same wayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.13 In line with this, the POE looked to quantify the level of isolation of the building by analysing how much can be seen and heard from within the classrooms. With views out of all spaces limited only to the playground, which is enclosed on three sides by school buildings and on another by a high level wall, it is reasonable to assume that the theoretical benefits of this principle are unlikely to be felt in this particular setting. The landlocked site also means that very little of the noise that characterises the streets surrounding the site could be heard from inside the school.

Window wall provides views out into the playground which can be distracting for the children

Classroom includes a visible option to escape in the form of an enclosed built in room

Window wall provides views out into the playground which can be distracting for the children

External doors are fobbed

Walls lean into playground space which can be daunting for children

Overlooked by neighbouring residential buildings

Figure 14 - The window wall in the purpose built classroom Window wall allows even more natural light into the classroom but is south facing so direct sunlight can make the room quite hot

Escape space is dark but maintains a connection to the main classroom through window in the door

School buildings on three sides make the space seem inward looking Neighbouring residential buildings limit views and overlook the playground

Figure 15 - View of the playground from the classroom window Inward looking outdoor area with little exposure to the outside world

Natural seating areas created by curving walls

Playground surface undulates creating a trip hazard for those that

PHENOMENOLOGY As a result of their size, irregular form, sloping ceilings and curved walls the awkwardly shaped spaces felt vast, with a lack of predictability to how activities could occur within. With the tendency for these spaces to be divided into smaller parts highlighted in the POE, my own lack of clarity when experiencing the space further indicates the need for clear zoning to mitigate the stress that can be a feature of anybody’s behaviour in overly large or complex spaces, not just those with ASD.14 A common theme connecting the permanently designed ‘safe space’ in the purpose built classroom and the much more make-shift version in the adapted classroom was that they were overly dark. I subconsciously avoided entering either of them during my visit, opting instead to view from afar. With darkness being an observation throughout the adapted classrooms, in which the least time was spent, the emphasis on discussions around natural lighting by the staff does not seem misplaced. The uninspiring and monotonous visual feel of the extensive white surface treatment highlighted in the POE meant that it was difficult to predict the kind of spaces I was about to enter when moving through the building, something I was focused on in an attempt to identify the ‘structure, clarity and predictability’ emphasised by Harker as being essential to minimise the ‘uncertain and threatening’ nature of a ‘difficult and confusing world’.15 Throughout my visit I became reasonably unaware of my bearings, with a lack of visual or sound connection to the busy surrounding area that I knew existed. It is easy to see why this is a potential problem for children with autism who could perhaps benefit from the reassurance that comes with familiarity, particularly in a setting that is likely to cause stress.16

Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez et al, Autism and the Built Environment (September 2011), In Tim Williams,

Autism Spectrum Disorders – From Genes to Environment, pp.377, www.intechopen.com/books/ autism-spectrum-disorders-from-genes-to-environment/autism-and-the-built-environment [accessed 17/04/19]. Lynn Plimley and Maggie Bowen, Autistic Spectrum Disorders in the Secondary School (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2006). 11

Dagmara Woronko and Isabel Killoran,Creating Inclusive Environments for Children with Autism (September 2011), In Tim Williams, Autism Spectrum Disorders – From Genes to Environment, pp.215, www.intechopen.com/books/autism-spectrum-disorders-from-genes-toenvironment/creating-inclusive-environments-for-children-with-autism [accessed 17/04/19]. 12

Marijke Kinnaer et al, Autism Friendly Architecture from the Outside In and the Inside Out,

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, June 2016, Vol.31(2), pp.191.

Rachna Khare and Abir Mullick, Incorporating the Behavioural Dimension in Designing Inclusive Learning Environments for Autism, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2009, Vol.3(3), pp.50. 14

Maurice Harker and Nigel King, Designing for Special Needs: An Architect’s Guide to Briefing and Designing Options for People with Learning Disabilities (London: RIBA Publishing, 2002), 15

pp.92. 16

Marijke Kinnaer et al, Autism Friendly Architecture from the Outside In and the Inside Out,

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, June 2016, Vol.31(2), pp.191.

Chapter 5 Case Study B: Mossbrook School

INTRODUCTION TO THE BUILDING Mossbrook School is a special school for children aged 4 to 11 located in Norton, south of Sheffield City Centre. As part of a collaboration between Sheffield LEA and Sheffield School of Architecture in 2003, a new ‘Classroom of the Future’ was designed by Sarah Wigglesworth Architects on the Mossbrook site, with the aim that this be inclusive of the unique learning needs of pupils with ASD.17

Figure 16 - A sketch representation of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Classroom of the Future at Mossbrook School

TEACHER FOCUS GROUP The focus group at Mossbrook helped to gather the insight of the two teachers at the school that have extensive experience of working in the ‘Classroom of the Future’. PLAYGROUND Control

Safety

Less Distracting Good Ventilation Less Wall Displays

Light II

Windows

Natural Light

High Ceilings II Distraction

CLASSROOM

Large/Open

Connection to Nature

III Engaging

Tailor Environment

Zoning

Separation

CHILDREN

III

Positive Distraction

Quiet

Calming

Distraction Reduced Calming

Distraction Reduced

Distraction

Quiet Room

Noise II

SEN

Timber Roof

SENSORY

Match Areas to Sounds

Sensory Room Textured Walls

Multiple Stimulus

Self Regulation

Figure 17 - Thematic analysis of the focus group conversation at Mossbrook. Looking at the movement of the discussion as well as the frequency that themes were touched upon.

“The quieter they are the better. Because a lot of our noise… that kind of background distraction is a bit like there’s a constant hum of noise. So being over here you can tell its really peaceful and quiet which I think helps.” Participant B.1

Noise levels appeared to be the most important factor to keep under control (having been mentioned eight times during the discussion), with the separation to the main school building and the tranquillity this brings being the main benefit from the perspective of staff. Reducing distraction for the children during lessons, this case highlights the benefits of a standalone classroom as an effective way of achieving an environment that gives children with ASD better opportunities to engage.

“You can have a sensory room set up… you can have a calm, quiet room where they can lie. I tend to find that those set ups work better because you can tailor them to all the children in the environment, because obviously autism impacts them all differently.” Participant B.1

According to Participant B.1, the “feeling of space” provided by the large volume of the main classroom “tends to help quite a lot” with regard to the children feeling comfortable in their environment. This is not only due to increased levels of personal space for each child but also to the minimisation of smaller combinations of spaces where children often “struggle to work out where they are”. It is difficult to decipher the thoughts of the staff with regard to the auxiliary spaces, with Participant B.1 describing the benefits of having “offshoots” of rooms allowing the inclusion of “different areas to engage the children” whilst also providing the opportunity for environments to be “tailored” to an activity or child. This is contradicted by Participant B.2 who states that “you can’t really do a massive amount in there”, clearly finding limited benefits to these spaces.

“It’s got good ventilation so we just open the windows, they’ve all got safety catches so that’s fine to do” Participant B.2

Despite having large openings, Participant B.2 stated that increased temperatures are rarely a problem due to the “good ventilation” in the space. High and low level windows being safe and easy to open not only provides a good opportunity for cross ventilation but also affords a good level of control over the environment, something the teachers seemed particularly happy with. It appears that an increased level of control is always beneficial to ensure a person with ASD is able to keep a space at a temperature that is suitable, minimising the need for them to communicate this to somebody else, something that many find challenging.

“Maybe because it’s got the wooden roof… that might have an impact on it [reducing problems for sensory children as a result of sound]” Participant B.1

The materiality of the building appears to be another feature that contributes to the “quietness” the teachers regard so highly. The building is designed to incorporate a ‘variety of natural and new materials so children can learn about them close at hand’.18 As part of this material strategy the ceiling of the building is clad in timber with Participant B.1 talking of how this material seemingly minimises echoes. As we have come to understand from various accounts of those living with ASD, background sounds and echoes can become a major disturbance to those with hyper-sensitivity and as such it is important to take advantage of opportunities to minimise this within the architecture.

“Just having that surround of nature on two sides makes a massive difference because its just that kind of calming environment I think” Participant B.1

Details such as a glazed section of flooring creating a view into a badger hide, coupled with well considered views out to the surrounding natural landscape mean that the children are able to enjoy their natural surroundings, finding it “relaxing and calming”. While this might be true, it remains to be seen how much this impacts learning activities within the classroom, with the tendency for many children to become easily distracted by things happening elsewhere.19 Participant B.1 was quick to dismiss this idea, highlighting the fact that it is the visual connection with other children that provides the main risk of becoming distracted or jealous (the reason for the very limited views in the direction of the adjacent playground) with the connection to nature on the other two sides of the building being seen as a very positive and “calming” distraction for the children.

“For a lot of our children words don’t mean a great deal so a lot of the time it is about trying to give them multiple stimulus so they know where they are going, a visual or a sound. And also rooms having a different appearance even if it’s just the door colour tends to help.” Participant B.1

Providing users with ‘environmental information through smell, sight, sound and touch’ is an interesting strategy for minimising the stress that comes with an unpredictable environment.20 Efforts have been made at Mossbrook to do this through the subtle integration of sounds, played through speakers to prepare children for the activities they are about to participate in. Simple visual cues such as colour have also been integrated, indicating that making an environment predictable and clear does not have to be a difficult design challenge and could be integrated as part of a more permanent architectural strategy.

Prue Chiles, Classroom for the Future: An Adventure in Design and Research, Architectural

Research Quarterly, September 2003, Vol.7(3-4), pp.246. 18

Prue Chiles, Classroom for the Future: An Adventure in Design and Research, Architectural

Research Quarterly, September 2003, Vol.7(3-4), pp.251.

Magda Mostafa, An Architecture for Autism: Concepts of Design Intervention for the Autistic User, International Journal of Architectural Research, March 2008, Vol.2(1), pp.201. 19

Clare Vogel, Classroom Design for Living and Learning with Autism, Autism Aspergerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Digest, 2008, Vol.3, www.designshare.com/index.php/articles/classroom_autism [accessed 24/09/19]. 20

P O S T O C C U PA N C Y E V A L U AT I O N In a clear departure from recommendations made in previous research to keep material palettes neutral to reduce the risk of children becoming ‘offended’ by the space, the material palette at Mossbrook is reasonably varied.21 With an unusually shaped metal clad shell being partly broken up by areas of timber, bright green doors and glazing frames, this material palette seems a long way from the ‘neutrality’ that most accept as the norm. This made for a much more exciting space to be in, with the form and materiality of the exterior of the building continuing to the interior, helping to improve the ‘clarity and predictability’ of the spaces being entered.22

Metal cladding Timber screen allows children to observe weathering of materials

Figure 18 - Exterior view of the ‘Classroom of the Future’ at Mossbrook

Timber ceiling

Colourful window frames

Figure 19 - Interior of the ‘Classroom of the Future’ at Mossbrook

The ‘Classroom of the Future’ is quite large to reduce the ‘perceived threat’ that comes with lack of personal space for children with ASD.23 There appeared to be no attempts made to ‘compartmentalise’ space, with desks taking up roughly half of the room, leaving the other half relatively empty. Despite this clear preference for a larger space in which to conduct daily activities, the existence of the smaller library in one of the three auxiliary rooms clearly indicated the desire for a smaller, less intimidating space to be available for the children’s use at times when the main classroom might become overwhelming. This space had an abundance of natural top lighting and a noticeable disconnection to the main classroom, allowing children to self-regulate in a completely separate environment. However, this could also mean that teachers lose the ability to observe behaviour and the children also become completely disconnected from the remainder of the class when suffering from a time of over-stimulation or anxiety, something that should be avoided according to architect Simon Humphreys.24 This could explain why two of the auxiliary rooms are instead used for storage to achieve the ‘clutter-free’ environment that is often recommended to reduce the ‘temptation’ that some visible objects can bring.25

Softer, less reflective materials create quieter environment than the main classroom

Large roof light provides lots of diffuse natural lighting to the small space

Skylight reduces need for artificial lighting and provides even light

Figure 20 - The main classroom

Books on display in line with the theory that some children with ASD like to be able to see posessions rather than them being hidden away

Figure 21 - The auxiliary library space

Comfortable, colourful seating for quiet reflection

65 All the roomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contents are visible to reduce

Having established the benefits of the classroomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s well considered connection to nature, the reality of the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daily use has a tendency to compromise the architectural intention. For example, the glazed badger hide viewpoint in the floor has become scratched to the point that it cannot be seen through and the window wall that connects the classroom with the adjacent lake has been shuttered off. This highlights the importance of robust and easily usable finishes in classroom spaces, to maintain the benefits that thoughtful design solutions can bring to the children later in a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life.

Figure 22 - The glazed badger hide viewpoint in the floor of the main classroom

Window wall out to lake shuttered off with teachers unsure of where the key is

Figure 23 - The main classroom

PHENOMENOLOGY I felt uneasy at the distinct disconnection of this space with the rest of the school, something the teachers saw as a positive. I found myself lacking the feeling of orientation that familiar sounds and a visual connection to the surroundings can give you, making it feel like I had stepped into another world. This has the potential to cause issues for those with autism in terms of how ‘imaginable’ it is to move between different parts of their environment, with the inability to ‘elaborate a mental image of what lays behind a door or wall’ attributed to the ‘extreme nervousness’26 that those with autism sometimes experience. As well as this, I am wary of this separation between children with autism and those without becoming a negative, through a lack of integration that is integral to the school’s vision. In a space that seemed relatively run-down and separated from the rest of the school, the light levels and the clarity this gave to the main classroom provided a huge boost to my experience. For the first time I felt connected to the surrounding landscape, something that was extremely comforting given the lack of connection to the school and the playground I had just entered from. I found the effect of the material palette that is ‘key to the learning experience’27 at Mossbrook had been diluted by the lack of maintenance of the white walls and timber structural elements that characterise the interior. This is in contrast to the form and materiality of the exterior, which has a more high-tech aesthetic, a disparity that could induce extra stress when moving between contrasting spaces and environments.28 I found myself standing at the lighter end of the large classroom, amongst the desks and away from the emptier, darker end which was much less inviting. Nevertheless, the elongated form of the space helped me to ascertain this from the start and I was given a

choice to stay away from the parts of the room that were not as inviting. Within the large classroom, the children’s desks helped to make the space feel less overwhelming and more aligned to the human scale. Features like the low level glazing have been designed to give maximum impact to the children, with the benefits much more difficult for an adult to experience due to their superior size. It is interesting that this space appears to give much more away to those that are smaller, giving the impression that it is only them who have the right to explore it fully.

Christopher Beaver, Designing Environments for Children and Adults with ASD, Good Autism

Practice, January 2011, Vol.12(1), pp.10.

Maurice Harker and Nigel King, Designing for Special Needs: An Architect’s Guide to Briefing and Designing Options for People with Learning Disabilities (London: RIBA Publishing, 2002), 22

pp.92. 23

Simon Humphreys, Autism and Architecture, Autism London, February 2005, pp.7.

Lynn Plimley and Maggie Bowen, Autistic Spectrum Disorders in the Secondary School (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2006). 25

Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez et al, Autism and the Built Environment (September 2011), In Tim Williams,

Autism Spectrum Disorders – From Genes to Environment, pp.376, www.intechopen.com/books/ autism-spectrum-disorders-from-genes-to-environment/autism-and-the-built-environment [accessed 17/04/19]. 27

Prue Chiles, Classroom for the Future: An Adventure in Design and Research, Architectural

Research Quarterly, September 2003, Vol.7(3-4), pp.251.

Maurice Harker and Nigel King, Designing for Special Needs: An Architect’s Guide to Briefing and Designing Options for People with Learning Disabilities (London: RIBA Publishing, 2002), 28

pp.92.

Chapter 6 Discussion

US GROU C P FO Lighting

Exploration

Comfort

Temperature

Size Distraction Safety Coping Strategy

Size Temperature Touch Materiality Colour Lighting

Variety Smell

Engaging

Calming

Touch Smell Colour

Engaging

Temperature

Noise

Comfort

Zoning

Clarity

Materiality Predictability

Familiarity

Orientation

Imagination

Clarity

Size Familiarity

Predictability

Temperature

Noise - Analysed in discussion

Calming

Lighting

Size

Noise

Distraction

Flexibility

Zoning

Orientation

Materiality

Comfort

Imagination Lighting

Variety

Predictability

Self Regulation

Noise

Coping Strategy

Exploration

Zoning

Flexibility

Zoning

POE

Control

Safety

Control

Self Regulation

O M E N O LO

Figure 24 - Triangulation diagram outlining the themes that came about from the three methods used in this study and how they have been brought together to form the discussion section which follows.

Whilst the maximisation of natural lighting has been highlighted as fundamental by previous research into this topic and unanimously confirmed by my focus groups as an important consideration, this is nothing new. Good architects are always striving for this to be a key feature of the spaces they design, and rightly so. Instead, noise was highlighted by my research as one of the biggest factors to consider when designing specifically for those with ASD, echoing the importance placed on sound and acoustics by Mostafa as ‘the most influential architectural factor on autistic behaviour’, including ‘attention span’.29 Whether it be through physical isolation or the manipulation of sound through materiality or form, conversations with staff at the case study schools highlight that quiet spaces are the most effective for ensuring children with ASD get the most out of their learning environment. It is worth noting however, that when quiet classroom spaces are entered from a noisy corridor or playground, it is seen as beneficial to include a buffer space for the children to ‘prepare for transition’ between turbulent and calm spaces.30 Looking beyond this I was keen to test some of the other theories put forward in existing literature, the first of which is that of Whitehurst (2006) who recommends that it is not only important to ensure that children are comfortable in any environment that is created, but it is equally important to ensure the wellbeing and comfort of the teachers, not least because of their tendency to subconsciously influence the mood of their students.31 This is backed up by the staff at Woodlands, who were able to list several elements of the architecture that they found problematic for themselves. Spanning from architectural details such as buzzing sounds from artificial lights and temperature control, to fundamental problems with the building’s form and layout, the teachers inferred on multiple occasions that their own frustrations with the environment can transfer to negative behaviour from the children.

Another widely accepted recommendation of previous research is the use of a ‘limited palette of materials’ in order to reduce the ‘stimulation and obsessive behaviour’ that can come with the inclusion of this kind of detail.32 The retrospective tactile additions made at Woodlands and the deliberate avoidance of a muted material strategy at Mossbrook suggests the importance that these environments do not become unfriendly or impersonal in their evasion of ‘disturbing’ colours or materials. Instead, the evident success of the ‘Classroom of the Future’ indicates it is possible to create pieces of architecture that are themselves a learning tool, helping children with ASD learn about the world around them through a tactile relationship with a building and its materials. Architect Christopher Beaver discusses the importance of making the architecture ‘robust’ or ‘easily replaceable’ when designing for children with ASD.33 The emphasis placed on safety at Woodlands highlights an important consideration to be made when looking at the ‘robust’ details that are recommended, with hard surfaces seen as a particular threat to the children’s safety, as demonstrated by padding around many of the metal columns and some of the walls. With the danger that a child with ASD can ‘escalate’ at any point, it is imperative that the architecture does not become an added danger to them. Any finishes intended to be resilient to daily use by these children need to be carefully considered to ensure they are not hindering the safety of those that use them. With this study revealing a number of small architectural details to be either beneficial or unsuitable for the users, it would be easy to recommend the inclusion or omission of these into future designs. What has also been highlighted however, particularly when talking to the teachers at Woodlands, are the benefits that can come from a building not being completely sensitive to the issues

faced by those with ASD, and that ‘cocooning’ can be unhelpful in later life.34 With teachers describing ways children have learned to ‘adapt’ and find their own ‘coping strategies’ for small details that they are perhaps less comfortable with, the question is raised about whether it is a positive that designed solutions are not completely perfect, with some imperfection on the small scale embraced as a new way of coping with an uncertain world. The idea that children with ASD ‘need more personal space’ is one that is unanimously accepted, leading to the recommendation of greater provisions of space when designing specialised learning environments.35 Not only reducing the threat that comes with a lack of personal space, the central large classroom at Mossbrook is helpful for orientation, minimising the problem of children getting lost in a network of smaller spaces (however simple this may seem to anybody else). With those on the autism spectrum tending to ‘need to position themselves in space’, the simplicity that is inherent in the spatial layout of the ‘Classroom of the Future’ is an effective way of helping people to do this.36 One conclusion from an in-depth study by Mostafa (2008) was the benefits that a strategy of ‘zoning’ and ‘compartmentalisation’ of activities and space can bring to the ‘attention span, response time and behavioural temperament’ of children with ASD in the classroom.37 This seems in contrast to the previous discussion which advocated the benefits that a large open space can provide. Staff at Woodlands have helped to decipher this, advocating a larger classroom for similar reasons whilst also recommending the “flexible” and “visual” separation of spaces to help the children understand where certain activities happen. It is interesting to imagine solutions to this spatial dilemma, with a flexible system allowing a space to feel both large and open whilst also able to be compartmentalised into the activity zones that are

essential for many children to feel comfortable and engaged with certain activities. In terms of orientation in the wider setting, it was recommended that a visual connection be kept to the external surroundings in order to give children some reassuring ‘familiarity’.38 With both case studies doing this in very different ways, it highlighted a distinction to be drawn about the kinds of stimuli these visual connections offer. Firstly, the visual connection at Woodlands was mostly with the playground and some of the nearby buildings. This was seen by staff to be too much of a distraction with some children not engaging in classroom activities when other children were playing in the playground. In contrast, the ‘Classroom of the Future’ at Mossbrook deliberately looks away from the adjacent playground, instead focusing on the natural landscapes to the south and west. This is seen by the staff as a positive, describing the ‘calming’ benefits a connection to the natural world has on the development and learning of the children, in line with the ‘reduced frustration and anxiety’ that Humphreys also finds a connection to nature to bring.39 The relaxed feel of the main classroom could go some way to explaining the apparent reduced demand for escape spaces at Mossbrook, with two being used for storage instead.

Magda Mostafa, An Architecture for Autism: Concepts of Design Intervention for the Autistic User, International Journal of Architectural Research, March 2008, Vol.2(1), pp.197. 29

Keith McAllister and Barry Maguire, Design Considerations for the Autism Spectrum DisorderFriendly Key Stage 1 Classroom, Support for Learning, 2012, Vol 27(3), pp.107. 30

Teresa Whitehurst, The Impact of Building Design on Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, Good Autism Practice, 2006, Vol 7(1), pp.36. 31

Simon Humphreys, Autism and Architecture, Autism London, February 2005, pp.7.

Christopher Beaver, Designing Environments for Children and Adults with ASD, Good Autism

Practice, January 2011, Vol.12(1), pp.11.

Keith McAllister and Barry Maguire, Design Considerations for the Autism Spectrum DisorderFriendly Key Stage 1 Classroom, Support for Learning, 2012, Vol 27(3), pp.104. 34

Simon Humphreys, Autism and Architecture, Autism London, February 2005, pp.7.

Marijke Kinnaer et al, Autism Friendly Architecture from the Outside In and the Inside Out,

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, June 2016, Vol.31(2), pp.191.

Magda Mostafa, An Architecture for Autism: Concepts of Design Intervention for the Autistic User, International Journal of Architectural Research, March 2008, Vol.2(1), pp.194. 37

Marijke Kinnaer et al, Autism Friendly Architecture from the Outside In and the Inside Out,

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, June 2016, Vol.31(2), pp.191. 39

Simon Humphreys, Autism and Architecture, Autism London, February 2005, pp.6.

Chapter 7 Reflections

Reflecting on the methodology adopted by this study has provided an insight into how the data has been used and the discussions formed, helping to determine how future studies might advance from this. Firstly, the case studies were separated to assist the structure of the analysis, allowing more specific discourse to emerge in reference to each space. These were later brought together as part of a critical cross-examination in the discussion, drawing from all the data gathered during the process of the study to improve the quality of the final analysis. Reflecting on the methods used, I found the focus groups particularly useful in providing insights that add value to discussions about existing theories that would otherwise only be speculated on. Through being less structured than the other two methods I have found phenomenological analysis less effective with regard to this subject. Perhaps because of the unique nature of every person with ASD, I have been conscious that too much focus on my own account of the spaces had the danger of invalidating some of my hypotheses and as such my discussions have focused primarily on the data collected via the other two methods. Nevertheless, given the relative scarcity of information focusing on the link between autism and architecture, the mixed method approach adopted by this study is effective in the gathering of varied and meaningful information on the subject and it is essential that research in this field continues to highlight areas of good practice, as well as design failures, in this way. This will not only give us a more solid understanding upon which future studies can begin to elaborate, but will also become vital points of reference for architects when designing spaces with the complex needs of those with ASD in mind, something it is imperative begins to happen as a matter of course.

Alongside this, an understanding of the condition more generally is essential before any such analysis of case studies is undertaken. It is upon this understanding that this study, alongside previous work, has been able to provide discussions on the topics highlighted by the research methods that would lack validity had that initial sensitivity to the unique and complex nature of ASD been absent.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beaver, Christopher, Breaking the Mould, Communication, Autumn 2003, Vol.37(3), pp.40. Beaver, Christopher, Designing Environments for Children and Adults with ASD, Good Autism Practice, January 2011, Vol.12(1), pp.7-11 . Chiles, Prue, Classroom for the Future: An Adventure in Design and Research, Architectural Research Quarterly, September 2003, Vol.7(3-4), pp.244-261. Deasy, C.M. and Lasswell, Thomas, Designing Places for People: A Handbook on Human Behaviour for Architects, Designers and Facility Managers (New York: WatsonGuptill, 1990). Friedlander, Diana, Sam Comes to School: Including Students with Autism in Your Classroom, The Clearing House, January 2009, Vol.82(3), pp.141-144. Gaines, Kristi et al, Designing for Autism Spectrum Disorders (New York: Routledge, 2016). Groat, Linda and Wang, David, Architectural Research Methods, Second Edition (New York: Wiley, 2013). Harker, Maurice and King, Nigel, Designing for Special Needs: An Architect’s Guide to Briefing and Designing Options for People with Learning Disabilities (London: RIBA Publishing, 2002). Higashida, Naoki, The Reason I Jump, English Translation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2013). Humphrey, Neil and Lewis, Sarah, What Does ‘Inclusion’ Mean for Pupils on the Autistic Spectrum in Mainstream Secondary Schools?, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2008, Vol.8(3), pp.132-140. Humphreys, Simon, Autism and Architecture, Autism London, February 2005, pp.6-7. Jordan, Rita et al, Educational Interventions for Children with Autism: A Literature Review of Recent and Current Research, January 1998. Jordan, Rita, Education of Children and Young People with Autism, UNESCO, 1997.

Khare, Rachna and Mullick, Abir, Educational Spaces for Children with Autism; Design Development Process, 2008, CIB W 084 Proceedings, Building Comfortable and Liveable Environments for All, Atlanta USA, pp. 66-75. Khare, Rachna and Mullick, Abir, Incorporating the Behavioural Dimension in Designing Inclusive Learning Environments for Autism, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2009, Vol.3(3), pp.45-64. Kinnaer, Marijke et al, Autism Friendly Architecture from the Outside In and the Inside Out, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, June 2016, Vol.31(2), pp.179-195. Lazar, J et al, Inclusive Designing: Joining Usability, Accessibility and Inclusion (London: Springer 2014), pp.175-185. Love, Joan Scott, ‘How Autism Friendly Architecture Can Change Autistic Children’s Lives’, The Conversation < http://theconversation.com/how-autism-friendlyarchitecture-can-change-autistic-childrens-lives-120516> [accessed 10/08/19] . Love, Joan Scott, Studio Teaching Experiments – Spatial Transitioning for Autism Schools, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2019, Vol 13(1), pp.39-57. McAllister, Keith and Maguire, Barry, Design Considerations for the Autism Spectrum Disorder-Friendly Key Stage 1 Classroom, Support for Learning, 2012, Vol 27(3), pp.103-112. McAllister, Keith and Sloan, Sean, Designed by the Pupils, For the Pupils: An Autism Friendly School, British Journal of Special Education, 2016, Vol 43(4), pp.331-357. McAllister, Keith, The Autism Friendly Classroom – Design Complexity, Challenge and Characteristics, 2010, www.researchgate.net/publication/267684638_The_ASD_ Friendly_Classroom_-_Design_Complexity_Challenge_and_Characteristics [accessed 27/09/19]. Mostafa, Magda, An Architecture for Autism: Concepts of Design Intervention for the Autistic User, International Journal of Architectural Research, March 2008, Vol.2(1), pp.189-211. Plimley, Lynn and Bowen, Maggie, Autistic Spectrum Disorders in the Secondary School (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2006).

Sánchez, Pilar Arnaiz et al,, Autism and the Built Environment (September 2011), In Tim Williams, Autism Spectrum Disorders – From Genes to Environment, pp.363-380, www.intechopen.com/books/autism-spectrum-disorders-from-genes-to-environment/ autism-and-the-built-environment [accessed 17/04/19]. Scott, Iain, Designing Learning Spaces for Children on the Autism Spectrum, Good Autism Practice, Vol 10(1), May 2009, pp.36-51. Vogel, Clare, Classroom Design for Living and Learning with Autism, Autism Asperger’s Digest, 2008, Vol.3, pp.30-40. Whitehurst, Teresa, The Impact of Building Design on Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, Good Autism Practice, 2006, Vol 7(1), pp.31-38. Woronko, Dagmara and Killoran, Isabel, Creating Inclusive Environments for Children with Autism (September 2011), In Tim Williams, Autism Spectrum Disorders – From Genes to Environment, pp.213-226, www.intechopen.com/books/autism-spectrumdisorders-from-genes-to-environment/creating-inclusive-environments-for-childrenwith-autism [accessed 17/04/19].

IMAGE REFERENCES Figure 1 - Author’s own illustrative interpretation of points from Mostafa, Magda, An Architecture for Autism: Concepts of Design Intervention for the Autistic User, International Journal of Architectural Research, March 2008, Vol.2(1), pp.189-211. Figure 2 - Author’s own illustrative interpretation of points from Sánchez, Pilar Arnaiz et al,, Autism and the Built Environment (September 2011), In Tim Williams, Autism Spectrum Disorders – From Genes to Environment, pp.363-380, www.intechopen.com/books/autism-spectrum-disorders from-genes-to-environment/autism-and-the-built-environment [accessed 17/04/19]. Figure 3 - Author’s own illustrative interpretation of points from Kinnaer, Marijke et al, Autism Friendly Architecture from the Outside In and the Inside Out, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, June 2016, Vol.31(2), pp.179-195. Figure 4 - Author’s own diagram Figure 5 - Author’s own illustration Figure 6 - Author’s own diagram Figure 7 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 8 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 9 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 10 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 11 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 12 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 13 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 14 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism) Figure 15 - Author’s own photograph (Woodlands Centre for Autism)

Figure 16 - Author’s own illustration Figure 17 - Author’s own diagram Figure 18 - Author’s own photograph (Mossbrook School) Figure 19 - Author’s own photograph (Mossbrook School) Figure 20 - Author’s own photograph (Mossbrook School) Figure 21 - Author’s own photograph (Mossbrook School) Figure 22 - Author’s own photograph (Mossbrook School) Figure 23 - Author’s own photograph (Mossbrook School) Figure 24 - Author’s own diagram

Appendices 1.1 - Woodlands Focus Group Transcript 1.2 - Woodlands POE Checklists 1.3 - Woodlands Phenomenological Account 2.1 - Mossbrook Focus Group Transcript 2.2 - Mossbrook POE Checklists 2.3 - Mossbrook Phenomenological Account

APPENDIX 1.1 - WOODLANDS FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT Woodlands Centre for Autism at Netley Primary School London 28th June 2019 CP – Charlie Perriam (Researcher) PA.1 – Participant A.1 (Autism Lead) PA.2 – Participant A.2 (Teacher) PA.3 – Participant A.3 (Teacher) PA.4 – Participant A.4 (Teaching Assistant) Preface by PA.1 – 50% to 90% of children with ASD experience sensory difficulties. All of our children at Woodlands have a diagnosis and experience sensory difficulties. All of them also need some kind of support in their day to day lives. CP – So just to give you a bit of an outline of the research I am working on, so I have

friends and family who are on the autistic spectrum and what quite a lot of them have had problems with, mostly in the mainstream education system, but problems with going to school and things like that and it just seems from the outside that there is not a lot of provision in that mainstream education in terms of kind of helping them get through and being sensitive to their needs. So what I’m looking at as a student of architecture is what role the built environment, so things like buildings and classrooms, has on those people and what changes can be made and what can be designed in to help with the everyday sensory problems that people have. So I just wanted this to be relatively free with the opportunity for you all to talk about anything that you’ve noticed with this place which might be good, might be bad, anything that has a distinct reaction from some of your students. So the first thing I’d like to talk about is the sensory stuff so is there anything like sounds or the amount of light and things like that that you may have control of or not? I know research into autism as a condition suggests that the idea of control over the environment is something that seems to help. PA.1 – That’s what it seems yes. And to preface I said that this was built as an adult learning centre so … CP – Yes, so any problems you’ve encountered because of the fact that it is not

purpose built for the group that are using it now. Is there anything that sticks out that doesn’t quite work maybe? PA.2 – Well I guess that kind of idea that this was built to be something else and

is now being used for children with autism who require quite a lot of adaptations to rooms and things seems a bit strange in itself. I mean, they built a two-year-olds centre in the school that was primarily for two-year-olds so obviously it was built with that in mind whereas these children who have got to deal with a space that really wasn’t designed for them at all. And I don’t know much about the ins and outs of SEN school funding but I wonder if there is something… I don’t know is it almost harder to get funding to build a school with SEN provision rather than a two-year-olds centre, which will have more children in it. I don’t know whether that’s the reason why maybe resource centres get a bit more. PA.3 – Its tricky here because this part we are in now was originally designed to be what it is used for, from the second class onwards so [the east] side of the building, that was the adult part. CP – With the wavy walls? PA.3 – Yeah, so the playground and these other two classrooms was meant to be like an autism unit but that doesn’t always… its not clear because it’s all the same. I mean apart from the wavy wall. PA.1 – So [the non purpose built classrooms] are very curved on the walls, and I don’t obviously know the children’s sense of how that feels, especially if you have a different awareness of your body and space but I know that when some visitors come some people don’t notice and some people are like ‘wow that makes me sick’. And I think also the children tend to squeeze into the little corners, because the wall will like bend into a corner and maybe that’s not necessarily where you want them to be if you want to provide them with a safe space. You don’t want them squished in a corner when you are trying to do a lesson. PA.2 – And we’ve got like a kitchen part, well actually all classrooms have a kitchen part but I guess ours is more obvious, which kind of works well for like feeding and stuff but then equally I do sometimes look at the kids, you’ve got like eight children in this quite small little penned in thing, and if that wasn’t there I wonder if we’d have more room to have more freedom or more flexibility of like where they would eat. So yeah the walls are curved and also there’s like big skirting boards from the edges, like actual ledges that they can hit their head on. PA.1 – It gives you the space to squeeze into there which they do quite a lot. And, I think like quiet small spaces are really important to have, maybe just not in that way. Because DR’s quiet room is very important to the children.

PA.2 – See we don’t really have that. CP – So which room is this, the purpose built one? PA.3 – Yeah and the other one which I think they use as a kind of work space but… PA.4 – Yeah and both of those classrooms have got quite a lot of natural light in them because the windows are quite big, and the others have just got those small windows. PA.2 – Yeah but also where the entrance to the adult learning centre used to be in our class, nobody has thought to disconnect the buzzer, so we still get people that see the entrance and buzz it. And that’s obviously quite disturbing to the class. But obviously from the outside that window also looks a bit abandoned and redundant so you get lots of people hanging out there talking and smoking and sometimes that comes in through the window. CP – So if you talk about the, I guess particularly in the non-purpose built area but

also in general, is there anything that you have done to adapt what’s already here to make it suit a little bit better? PA.4 – It’s the high handles on the doors. PA.1 – So you can’t see it here but on the external doors are either fobbed or they have high handles for safety. So [the purpose built classroom has] a quiet space which is really important as somewhere the children can go to, and it’s fine because you can see inside, there’s a window. And DR/BB adapted another quiet space for the children because you made a table that has a leg over it and one of the children really likes that, and LM has a blue chair, because otherwise the children have nowhere to go besides the squishy in the corner if they need some quiet time. PA.2 – I guess what the thing is about being in a space where it is a bit like… not ideal, does mean that they’re quite like… they get used to… ‘adaptable’. So there’s classes that I’ve worked in before that have been very open, square shapes but that also doesn’t necessarily give you much to work with either so you have kids that can just run around and that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to be regulating their emotions, or you know… learning self regulation, because they’re just throwing themselves around the room and they know that it’s going to be ok. PA.1 – So I think in terms of space, having a purpose built space where children can go to calm down, to have quiet time or like… making that which is what has been done in some of our classrooms. I do notice that a lot of the children [in the adapted

spaces] go to the toilet and close the door if they want to be alone. PA.3 – And there are some quite big structural metal… I don’t know if you’ve seen them, there’s two in my classroom CP – Structural columns? PA.3 – Yeah, one of them has some padding around because they are just massive lumps of metal. And there’s another one right by the quiet room which I think you can squeeze around. Yeah, so I think some of them can get that feedback from being pressed between the wall and this pole. So that one hasn’t got anything but they’re just quite strange things to have in a room. Well, I mean they do ring so you hear some of the children ringing it and getting some exploration out of the room. CP – Like knocking onto it? Is that what you mean? PA.3 – Yeah it makes that sort of resonant metal sound. But actually I would say that all the lights are rubbish, I hate them all because they’re the strip lights and I think, obviously when it was built which was whenever… PA.2 – See that’s the good thing about our class that we don’t have strip lights we’ve got like in the ceiling lights, so our light is actually quite nice, even though we don’t have a lot of natural light. PA.1 – And those lights don’t buzz. Whereas even when the strip lights are off they buzz. You can’t hear it in here so much because it’s very loud outside but I find it… Our other teacher is actually a really good one because she has a lot of sensory processing difficulties and she will tell you that the lights in her classroom are really loud as well. And they’re so loud in [PA.3’S] room. PA.3 – They are. PA.1 – You keep the lights off most of the time. PA.2 – Yeah I was about to say, I do to. PA.3 – Yeah well I try to until the kids don’t like that. CP – Do you have enough light coming in naturally for that? To be able to do that? PA.3 – Yeah well sometimes yeah.

PA.4 – So there’s windows in the ceiling as well. PA.3 – But on cloudy days it is pretty dull in there but a whole wall into the playground is glass so later in the day in summer it is a bit of a hot box, you know, greenhouse. But we’ve got nice blinds for that. PA.2 – Do they get distracted easily by seeing all the kids out there? PA.3 – Sometimes. And it depends on who because in the past there’s been children that are glued to the window all the time and sometimes, like this year it doesn’t seem to be much of a thing. PA.4 – The quiet room is also like a dark room at the moment, we’ve blocked out the light so that they can go in there. PA.3 – It’s got like a light tube in the ceiling. PA.1 – Yeah the kids use it a lot and I think if you’re building a building from the beginning you should really think about the lights because that’s one of the most… it’s very distracting. PA.3 – And the other thing that drives me round the bend, we have underfloor heating and its been a problem… I’ve been here eight years and it’s always been a problem, because it doesn’t work. It’s either on or off and it’s on and it takes a few days to cool down and warm up so it could be cold and get warmer and your heating is on then. It just feels like a problem. CP – So for example on a day like today when it’s really warm could it just be on? PA.3 – It’s the timing of it so it’s on the transitions when it’s getting a bit chilly you’d put the heating on and then its too hot. And it doesn’t seem to be able to be controlled but obviously that’s just here, there must be better systems but… PA.1 – It’s interesting most special needs schools have underfloor heating for some reason, and the really sensory kids lie where the pipe goes through. PA.2 – The heating in my room is never that bad, but it means also that when it’s cold it’s cold, but its never as hot as theirs. PA.3 – Is it underfloor in there?

PA.2 – Yeah. Or maybe because you’ve got more light coming through the windows it doesn’t feel as hot but definitely… You know last year when it was really hot? Maple and Oak was really hot compared to ours. I don’t know if its because our is a bit more in the shade? Or its got less natural light? CP – It’s interesting to think about the orientation, like you say if there’s direct sunlight

coming in in the afternoon its going to get really hot whereas if its shaded its probably going to be a bit better. PA.3 – But it is also quite nice to have all that light in the day and individual room access to the playground. CP – Do you ever find that if the sun is shining directly in it can become quite

distracting for someone sitting in the classroom? Would that be a problem if there is sunlight shining straight onto some of the children? PA.3 – A few of our children don’t really show that they feel the heat, they won’t take their jumpers off and stuff and clearly they’re hot. But like if its on the screen or something you can’t really see what’s being shown, but I don’t think that happens very often. But yeah, I hate being hot and it makes me feel awful so it’s probably more likely to be me to go ‘ah, lets go outside’. I guess if it shines or something and there’s a nice effect in the room then that might distract the kids. CP – But I suppose also, are you happy with the size of each classroom? You

could kind of move away maybe from the windows where it might be a bit more comfortable. PA.2 – I’m definitely happy with the size of my room but my children are smaller. I think my room is longer whereas yours is wider but then your children are a lot bigger and actually you haven’t got much space to escape from the light when its coming straight in. PA.3 – I feel like its an alright size. We’ve sort of manoeuvred the furniture and stuff which has made it feel more manageable. But like one of the tables we’ve got in there, the rounder one, it isn’t the right size for the size of our kids and the number of them so I think even if they were all random it would feel a little bit cramped because there’s a lot of movement in there so there needs to be that space. And certain children like certain areas at different times. PA.1 – I think having quite an open space is important because I think you need to

visually and structure off bits of the room for different things. Like you have such a separate space for your group work and such a separate space for conversation and you have really separate spaces for different things and I think you need to be flexible with that. You need to kind of change the space sometimes. But it does need to be really visually like ‘this is where we do this’. CP – That’s kind of from what I’ve read, a lot of the things that people are talking

about is it needs to be quite obvious what happens in what different area. You kind of touched on it a little bit when you were talking about the area near the sink and that might be where you have your lunch or whatever. PA.1 – So from an architects’ point of view maybe that just means creating a very open plan space where you have partitions. CP – Yeah that idea of kind of dividing space up, not with walls and things but having

partitions and things you can move around.

PA.2 – Lots of us have small partitions [roughly 1m high] in our class and we use that to section off a place if we’re doing something in a small space. But if you were making a building where you could move these things around. PA.1 – Like maybe from the ceiling, you know the ones they have in the PE hall? That would be really interesting. CP – I guess now then I’d like to talk a little bit about the sensory room. So is there a

kind of timetable for using that or is it when you see a child that might need to use it? PA.4 – I think it’s a bit of both. PA.2 – There’s a timetable definitely but I’ve never taken my kids and someone’s been like ‘no sorry I really need it for this kid right now’, usually people are quite flexible. Its probably a bit easier for the classrooms that are closer because they can communicate easier whereas if I bring all the kids down here and we’re ready to use it and someone has said ‘you need to go’, we’ve never had that situation. PA.1 – Maybe two or three times that a child has had a really hard time so we’ve said ‘this child needs it now’ PA.4 – I suppose if you were going to design it from scratch you’d have the communal space in the centre.

PA.2 – Also, this room [we are currently in] gets used for therapy but you can always hear the sound of the kids playing and the music next door. PA.1 – And it makes the kids a bit jealous because they want to be in there and they’re like ‘oh I’m stuck here doing work’. PA.2 – And also I sometimes wonder, because kids will sometimes come up to this window and want to see what’s happening in therapy, which I don’t necessarily think is a bad thing as long as the sound isn’t getting in the way. So even having therapy spaces where people can actually see what’s going on and look and see the kind of learning that’s going on would actually help and influence the kids a bit more but then I think noise is the biggest factor. PA.1 – And I didn’t realise how important… you really can’t teach or do adult directed work if there’s any other distraction. I was trying to do work with one of the children and another child was on the floor playing with these electric cars and she was not having it she was like ‘I want to play with that’. She couldn’t focus so you do definitely need those separated spaces. CP – Do you ever find that, when you recognise that a child needs to go and be in

that space for a little bit, that it doesn’t do the job? Or is it pretty much always a case of that space is exactly what they need? PA.2 – I think it’s a case of when you have a child in crisis and they get taken out of the classroom with one adult, usually all they need is just one adult’s attention and that means that they can do… you know, what they want to do is supported and that’s usually enough to de-escalate. PA.1 – Especially if you’ve reduced their demands for a little bit, most children would be willing to go back to class and do what you’ve asked them to do after that. There’s only one boy who, for a physical medical reason it wasn’t helpful for him. But I think for most of the children its really helpful. I was talking about one child who goes to the sensory room every morning with a friend and it really does help his behaviour overall throughout the day. PA.3 – And also if there is a sense of danger then it is the safest place for them to be for the other children but also themselves because pretty much everything is soft in there. So if they are throwing themselves around or they just want to kick something then they can. CP – So the last thing I wanted to talk to you about, quite an interesting thing is

thinking about you guys, so we kind of touched on the idea of being hot and that might influence your activities on a particular day, do you guys have any problems in here? And do you think that, if you do, that might be picked up by some of the children? PA.2 – Yeah I hate noise. PA.1 – Yeah me too, and the hot. And I hate the taps, but that’s not really an architectural issue. But I think that being hot is really hard. PA.3 – I’m wondering if the rooms are quite echo-y, my class are a noisy class and it does get really loud in there sometimes. I do wonder if the room, because it’s very tall and slopey and I just wonder if its maybe not the best design for a noisy classroom. I wonder if there’s anything like sound dampening or something that could happen. PA.2 – All the doors are fobbed apart from the one that goes from our class out into the playground and that means that there’s always other children, if we haven’t locked it behind us, kids from the other classes always walk in and if you’re in the middle of teaching and there’s this other kid that comes in… its just a major distraction. Its that thing of like, you don’t always want to lock it. PA.4 – Especially if they need to get out as well. CP – That’s a good point, if its all fobbed, I guess you don’t want kids wandering

round between classrooms but do you also have a problem with the lack of control that they have? PA.2 – Well some of the bigger ones can just open both the handles themselves. PA.3 – So they’ve all got double handles. PA.4 – We also need places sometimes we can actually put stuff away because the children can open the cupboard door as well and nothing is really out of reach. If one of the children wants paper or pens they know where to find them. PA.1 – I think rooms should have a little bit of control, children should be able to turn the lights on and off if they want to. And a lot of the children will go into a corner so that nobody is behind their back. Or a lot of children will go into the quiet room or put themselves in a cupboard. So I do think that control over your space and being able to be in a smaller quiet space if you want to is really important. And that’s fine, we would never stop the children from doing that if they needed to. And now that

I’m thinking about it as well so many of the children, when you’re walking through doors, they stop and cover their ears and wait for the door to close because they’re anticipating the sound of it. PA.3 – They are loud. PA.2 – That would be easy to fix I think. PA.1 – The children are worried about it. I mean I think its actually a good coping strategy though because you can’t control doors everywhere so they’re waiting for it and they know its going to happen. I would also say as a final point that in a traditional early years setting you would have everything available all the time, you would have continuous provision, you would have all the play items and I think in an autism setting its not possible because they wouldn’t be focusing on what you want them to focus on so I think the early years definitely looks different here than what it does in a typical school. PA.2 – And we still try and give them those options because we’ve got cupboards where we shut everything and then we just open the cupboards and they’re presented with it all and they have to choose what they want, which I guess is a similar thing to continuous provision its just its not out in the space all the time. PA.1 – And toilets nearby are very important because some of our children are working on their toileting.

APPENDIX 1.2 - WOODLANDS POE CHECKLISTS PURPOSE BUILT CLASSROOM

HOW MUCH CAN YOU SEE FROM THE WINDOW?

WHAT CAN YOU SEE FROM THE WINDOW?

HOW NOISY IS THE ROOM?

HOW STRONG DOES THE ROOM SMELL?

WHAT DOES IT SMELL LIKE?

HOW STIMULATING IS THE ROOM FOR TOUCH?

HOW NATURALLY LIGHT IS THE ROOM?

HOW WARM IS THE ROOM?

100

101

ADAPTED CLASSROOM

HOW MUCH CAN YOU SEE FROM THE WINDOW?

WHAT CAN YOU SEE FROM THE WINDOW?

HOW NOISY IS THE ROOM?

HOW STRONG DOES THE ROOM SMELL?

WHAT DOES IT SMELL LIKE?

HOW STIMULATING IS THE ROOM FOR TOUCH?

HOW NATURALLY LIGHT IS THE ROOM?

HOW WARM IS THE ROOM?

102

103

APPENDIX 1.3 - WOODLANDS PHENOMENOLOGICAL ACCOUNT Walking through the old school building to access the autism unit I felt nostalgic about my own time at school. The buildings were very similar. The first impression of the autism unit comes via the playground. I felt a little unsteady there as there are lots of bumps in the hard surface for the children to play on. The main impression of the building comes from the slightly curved walls. At first I thought this created quite a nice interaction with the playground, I didn’t notice that they were leaning outwards as well as curving. On a warm summer day the playground was quite a pleasant place to be, being enclosed by the surrounding buildings and trees which were shading it nicely. I felt well separated from the busy London streets I knew were very close by. Entering the building directly into one of the adapted classrooms it felt like a very large dark room, with a single table on the other side that 4 teachers were sat at. The room felt vast and sparsely decorated with the colourful displays you usually see on classroom walls. There was nothing to suggest to someone who didn’t know that this was an autism specific centre, except for maybe an overly fluffy rug on the hard floor that was likely used in a sensory way. The purpose built classroom visited next felt equally vast. It is a very square space with a sink in the corner and felt much lighter than the other classroom because of the large south facing window wall and the skylights. The ceiling felt high and the amounts of white you could see on the walls were minimised by the windows and a good amount of colourful student work. Although I felt more at ease in this room because of the amount of natural light, it was noticeably warmer and the size and lack of distinct zoning meant I didn’t really know what to do or where to stand. I was shown the escape space present in this room. This was a very small cupboard like space that had a skylight that had been blocked off and had been half heartedly tidied. I felt reluctant to enter this space fully, perhaps because it felt more like walking into a cupboard than a useable room, subconsciously choosing instead to look at it from outside the doorway. Moving back to the opposite end of the ‘L’ shaped plan we chose to go outside as this provided the shortest route. The second adapted classroom was even darker than the other, with only small openings in the curved walls which were high enough up so that even I struggled to see out. This room was longer and thinner than the others so felt like a long walk from the door to the group of teachers sitting near the board. There was a zoned off area down one of the long sides (making the room seem even longer and thinner) that looked like a dark corridor of space that I shouldn’t go in. In general the room felt messier, which coupled with the darkness meant it was perhaps the least pleasant room to be in.

104

The final room was the sensory room which began dark and empty when I first entered. It smelled quite strongly of cleaning products and it was clear that this was a room I had to take my shoes off to be in. With the lights on the amount of purple in the room was overpowering. It felt strange to have such little variation in colour in a room full of soft play mats which gave the impression that this was a very specialist kind of space (that perhaps I shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be in). With the rope swing in place and the dim colourful lights on the space felt smaller, as though it would be unable to hold more than 2 or 3 people at a time. It was an interesting space to be in for the 2 minutes or so that I was there but I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t say I was unhappy to leave for some of the lighter and larger spaces.

105

APPENDIX 2.1 - MOSSBROOK FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT Mossbrook School Sheffield 2nd July 2019 CP – Charlie Perriam (Researcher) PB.1 – Participant B.1 (Teacher) PB.2 – Participant B.2 (Teacher) CP – So just to give you a bit of an outline of the research I am working on, so I have

friends and family who are on the autistic spectrum and what quite a lot of them have had problems with going to school and and as a student of architecture I’m interested in what role buildings can play in being more sensitive to their sensory needs in an educational setting. So I just wanted this to be relatively free with the opportunity for you all to talk about anything that you’ve noticed in this classroom that has been purpose built with some of these people in mind. And feel free to be positive and negative. So first of all is there anything you have noticed is particularly beneficial to the children about being in this classroom over any other. Anything to do with the senses so light levels, sounds? PB.1 – The quieter they are the better. Because a lot of our noise… that kind of background distraction is a bit like there’s a constant hum of noise. So being over here [in the autism specific classroom] you can tell its really peaceful and quiet which I think helps. And then obviously, its an open space which has its pros and cons really, because obviously that means there’s more to distract if you’ve got things out and toys out and those kind of things which is why they tend to be more hidden away. CP – What ages of children use this room? PB.1 – So traditionally its been the year six classes that have been over here, so more of the older children and then the younger ones are based more down over there [in the main building]. So the layout of each classroom tends to vary. We all try and have a circle time area as we call it around the white board, and some of them are better equipped than others because some have had just naturally built in walls that just section off areas. But each classroom is very different really. They are kind of tailored to the children that are in there, so the foundation ones when you walk in there’s a lot more things out in terms of the toys and those kind of things because their provision is set up just to allow the children to go and play and interact and we work alongside them doing that. Whereas as they come up through school the idea is that we want to make them have more choices so more put into boxes and put on shelves and its that

106

idea of being able to choose and not have everything out. But we try and tailor it a little bit to the topics and subjects we’re teaching as well. CP – Do you know how long ago this was built? PB.1 – There used to be a book charting the building’s progress but I’m not sure where that’s got to. I’m pretty sure it was built in the 1990s so it’s a good fifteen to twenty years it’s been here so it has been here quite a while. CP – Is there anything that has changed about it? I’m not sure how long you’ve been

here but in that time how much has changed?

PB.1 – I’ve been here six or seven years. Not in terms of the building no, this space has very much always looked like this. Each teacher tends to set up their classroom completely differently really so you try and work with the space you’ve got which I think is quite hard at times because you’re almost better off with an area where you can teach around a while and then almost having offshots of rooms that the children can access, where you can close the door if you want to or you can have it open or you can set up three or four different areas to engage the different children. So in here they’re all quite low level learners, almost at a baby kind of stage, very sensory. CP – So are these children always in this room, they’re not going into different classes? PB.1 – No we don’t tend to do that here, we move around for things like PE, music assemblies, we’ll go to the main building and the hall for that but generally we stay within a class. As I say I tend to find if you can have areas you can section off it tends to work better because you can have a sensory room set up for like messy play and things like that, you can shut the door, you can contain it and the children know that that goes there. You can have a calm, quiet room where they can lie. I tend to find that those set ups work better because you can tailor them to all the children in the environment, because obviously autism impacts them all differently. But in terms of the structure and the layout of the building not much has changed. CP – And has it been quite effective at being a calming setting for those people that

struggle with sensory issues?

PB.1 – I think so yeah because like I say, its quiet… is the big one and just having that surround of nature on two sides makes a massive difference because its just that kind of calming environment I think isn’t it. CP – So are the three small rooms off this main space just used for storage?

107

PB.1 – They tend to be. The middle one is half set up as a library and quiet area, so again just for the children to access. Its kind of beanbags, seating, its got a little skylight as well, I think all three have got a skylight. Again the end one we tend to use just for storage. CP – So is there anything that you think works well or doesn’t quite work? PB.2 – The space is lovely. Its nice having a high ceiling. CP – You don’t have any problems with the high ceiling with echoes and things like

that causing problems for the sensory children? PB.2 – No its perfect.

PB.1 – Maybe that’s because its got the wooden roof to it I’m not sure, that might have an impact on it. PB.2 – The design is cool as well with the shape of it. PB.1 – And if you contrast that with some of the rooms in the main building which tend to be ‘L’ shaped and you tend to find they’re book ended by other classes so they get a lot of noise from other classes which obviously for a lot of our children can be quite distracting and overbearing. Also in the other classroom there’s a lot of other distractions with children being out at playtime, so lots of windows are brilliant for children to look out, but if you’ve got classes out at different times it can become a bit distracting [autism specific classroom looks away from playground onto trees, fields and lakes]. Obviously its good to get loads of natural light in and Its not too bad if you’re looking at the trees but if they’re looking at the playground or the car park it can just be another distraction. And a lot of the other classrooms feel a bit smaller because of the lower ceilings. CP – Do you get any problems with children getting distracted by the nature outside

the window, because this place is built to showcase those views onto nature? Things like birds and things? PB.2 – They might do sometimes but its never a real problem.

PB.1 – In some ways its quite nice because we turned it into a bit of a job so we ended up getting a couple of bird tables so one of the jobs for one of the children in the morning is to go and top up the bird seed in the bird table and you’d have that time where you can look at the birds. I think a lot of our children find animals quite

108

relaxing, like dogs and all those kind of things so I think seeing that… anything nature based for our children tends to be quite relaxing and calm. A lot of them love water and swimming and they find that quite calming. PB.2 – It helps them with their sensory, like going outside. PB.1 – Yeah so I think those kinds of things tend to be a good distraction as opposed to… because if its nature they’re looking at it and they’re observing it whereas if it’s a child they’re thinking ‘why can’t I be doing that’. It’s a different type of distraction. As I say a lot of our children tend to quite like nature whether its trees or bushes or plants or animals, they tend to get quite a lot from it. CP – How is the natural lighting in this space? Its not a particularly sunny day but it

seems reasonably bright.

PB.1 – Yeah the other classrooms tend to be quite dull but here natural light is the big winner, with the high ceilings just makes it feel more light. And just having that space, the feeling of space tends to help quite a lot. CP – Does it ever get too hot if the sun shines in? PB.2 – Its all right, but its got good ventilation so its fine we just open the windows, they’ve all got safety catches so that’s fine to do. PB.1 – Some of the other classrooms can get quite uncomfortably warm, so the windows benefit that way but obviously having that ventilation where you can cool it down tends to help. But also the less distractions the better, so its nice displaying work and things but at the same time it can be a bit of a distraction. CP – So do you actively try not to display work in here? PB.1 – Its more because there aren’t actually many areas to display, because you’ve got a lot of the windows and then there’s the three cupboards on the other side so there’s not actually that much wall space which kind of deters you from doing it. It might be that that does benefit and having those cupboards where you can shut things away it just keeps the room to the minimal. PB.2 – I’m not sure that those cupboards are very functional. But apart from that it’s the perfect classroom. It is lovely. And it feels separated which is nice and you’ve also got access to the ball pool. CP – Do you use that as a withdrawal space?

109

PB.2 – It’s used by all the classes. PB.1 – We’ve got three different types of calm room areas in the school, one which is just like a room with nothing in [in the main building] well there’s a couple of beanbags in there and you can choose how you want it. Then there’s the ball pool which tends to be used more for play but can be used if they’re cross, angry that kind of thing, and then last summer we got the sensory room put in which is more of a darkened space with lights… CP – So is that in the main building? PB.1 – Yeah it is, so its more kind of lights, smells, sounds type room. And then at some point we’re looking at having a pure soft play area put in. But in the main building they’re surrounded by other rooms whereas in this space, because its not surrounded you tend to find there’s not too much in the way of noise. And also the layout of the main building is a bit difficult for the children, with a lot of like close corridors. CP – It’s quite unpredictable I can imagine. PB.1 – Yeah and it just sprawls everywhere. But they all tend to go in because they love being in the sensory room in there. CP – Do you send them in to that individually or would they go in in groups? PB.1 – Mixture, so we never have more that three in due to the space and just so they can explore [the room]. So the idea behind the design of the sensory room was to hit all the senses so you’ve got the touch, the sound, the smell so that was the idea behind it. PB.2 – And its more for your low abilities I guess. PB.1 – So it tends to work well this space. And the other calm rooms tend to be more when a child is cross and literally its just a space with very little in. But yeah as I say the rest of the school is quite big and sprawling with cramped corridors. A lot of autistic children like space so not ideal to be being bundled along in there, wider corridors tend to be better. And wider doors and things like that. CP – Do you think they feel quite a lot more comfortable in here, with the big room

and not much circulation?

110

PB.1 – I think so, the main building is just a massive maze so its easy for them to run off and get lost or struggle to work out where they are. Something we have tried in there is to match areas to sounds so each classroom has a speaker above it so for example you go to music and hear a drum beat there, its like constant multiple stimulus so you’re telling them where they are with sound. Or you might play a sound as you leave the classroom and match it when we get there. Those things tend to help. For a lot of our children the words don’t mean a great deal so a lot of the time its about trying to give them multiple stimulus so they know where they’re going, a visual or a sound. And also rooms having a different appearance even if its just the door colour tends to help. So for example you can say ‘whenever we go to the pink door its baking’, or like I say you have the sound so whenever they hear that sound its like ‘that must mean I’m here’. So I think trying to have things instilled that have that stimulus, whether its something on the wall where as they’re walking along they can feel where they are, I think that would probably be beneficial for some of ours. PB.2 – I think yeah some kind of textural wall definitely. PB.1 – Its just that tactile sense, without it being too much of a massive distraction. CP – Do you ever have issues in the classroom of the future with children, if they can

see things around them, wanting to go and explore? PB.2 – Depends on the child.

PB.1 – Because they’re year 6s we tend to try and keep them to the more mainstream base in terms of timetable but the do have a lot more free or choosing time where they can get to choose a little bit more. I guess in some ways it would be nice to have that split where you can all go into a second room that’s separate, or even three or four smaller rooms where you could have the arts and crafts area where they can just go in, paint on the walls and you can wipe it down or a calm and quiet area and then you’ve almost got three or four doors or zones to explore but it can be shut away from the main segment of the classroom. PB.2 – I think it would be nice to have an ‘L’ shape, I mean the library is great but you can’t really do a massive amount in there. So it would be nice to be able to split those varying abilities. PB.1 – Things like that are beneficial where you can set different activities up in different parts of a classroom and then shut it away and be able to say ‘now it’s learning time’ or ‘its time for this’ and encourage them to come away from it as well.

111

APPENDIX 2.2 - MOSBROOK POE CHECKLIST CLASSROOM OF THE FUTURE

HOW MUCH CAN YOU SEE FROM THE WINDOW?

WHAT CAN YOU SEE FROM THE WINDOW?

HOW NOISY IS THE ROOM?

HOW STRONG DOES THE ROOM SMELL?

WHAT DOES IT SMELL LIKE?

HOW STIMULATING IS THE ROOM FOR TOUCH?

HOW NATURALLY LIGHT IS THE ROOM?

HOW WARM IS THE ROOM?

112

113

APPENDIX 2.3 - MOSSBROOK PHENOMENOLOGICAL ACCOUNT Walking across the playground from the main school building the ‘classroom of the future’ stands out in its form and materiality. It’s looking more weathered than I was expecting and I get the impression that approaching the lime green door at the entrance is not quite as exciting as it used to be. As you walk in and turn to the left the first thing I notice are two open doors to some toilets and an exposed water tank in the middle. The door to the left is locked shut which makes this space feel like somewhere I didn’t want to hang around and is instead more of a run down transition space. Entering the main classroom is a pleasant experience with lots of light entering at high levels through the north west facing roof windows and the low level horizontal windows on the south east, even on a day without direct sunlight. Being tall, the windows provide limited views out to the natural landscape around (being too low) which means my attention is fully on the building, but I can imagine children will benefit fully from an uninterrupted panorama on one side. The room feels big, but not vast. There is a large window on the end wall that is blocked off by a shutter which seems a shame, it means I am less inclined to go and explore that side of the room. The whole room feels a bit messy and old fashioned (in contrast to the shape of the building) with the dark timber on the roof contrasting hugely to the cream walls in a very old fashioned way. The surfaces look dirty and smell musty. It feels like years of use have taken their toll and I wonder how well the building is performing for the needs of its users because of this. The viewing porthole into the badger hide below the building is scuffed to the point you can’t see through it. The three closed doors on one side of the room look like cupboards and therefore not of too much interest to begin with. Only after looking in is it apparent they are reasonably large, each with a skylight. Two are being used for storage but one is a pleasant little library which seems like a very nice place to sit, separated from the class and read a book or do a different activity. It is unlike most spaces of its size that are dark and unpleasant. The building as a whole feels disconnected from the rest of the school, which limits distractions and noise, but also makes it feel a bit like a porter cabin that has been placed there because they don’t know how else to provide a separated space for those with special educational needs.

114