Programme For Kindergarten Facilities

INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of “ sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary,
sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
University’
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8408499
B e rrid g e , Joanne Shelboum e
AN APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING FOR KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES.

(RECORD OF STUDY)
Texas A&M University Ed.D. 1983
University
Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Copyright 1983
by
Berridge, Joanne Shelboume
All Rights Reserved
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____
3. Photographs with dark background_____
4. Illustrations are poor copy______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages \ /
8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____
11. Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.
12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered____________ . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages______
15. Other_________________ ______________________________
University
Microfilms
International
AN APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING
FOR KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES
Record of Study
by
JOANNE SHELBOURNE BERRIDGE
Submitted to the Graduate College of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 1983
Major Subject: Curriculum and Instruction
© 1983
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Record of Study
by
Approved as to style and content by:
Anna C. Seaman
(Chairman of Committee)
Q *. k //.
Jack K. Camp■ B S t l /
(Member)
w Douglas C. Godwin Wm. H.

(Member) (Head of Department)
David G. Woodcock
(Member)
December 1983
ABSTRACT
An Approach to Programming
For Kindergarten Facilities. (December 1983)
Joanne Shelboume Berridge, B.S., Texas Women's University
M.A., Ball State University
Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Anna C. Seaman
This record of study describes the events that led to the
development of the document, An Approach to Programming For
Kindergarten Facilities, which addressed the task of writing a program
for kindergarten facilities. The intent was to offer something which
could be used as a working guide by local planning committee members
when anticipating provision of new or remodeled spaces for
kindergarten children and their teachers. It resulted from a felt
need for better communication between user and designer. The report
includes the process of document development from research in two
disciplines, Education and Architecture, through the construction of
the document, field testing and final revision and printing. Results
of the field ratings are reported and the finalized document appears
in the appendices.
Respondents chosen to review and respond to An Approach to
Programming for Kindergarten Facilities concerning its clarity,
completeness and potential useability were selected on the basis of
their similarity to potential users and came from the following groups
of people: (a) School Board members (b) School Superintendents
iv
(c) Principals of schools containing kindergartens (d) Elementary
Coordinators (or similar title) (e) Kindergarten teachers (f) Parents
of kindergarteners and (g) Professional designers.
Data collected reflected the personal and professional background
and experiences of the respondents, the ratings for clarity and
completeness of each portion of the document and responses to
questions concerning potential use of the document. Respondents,
after identification and indication of willingness to participate in
the study, received the document for review and were requested to note
questions, comments or errors. They were cautioned that they were
responding to clarity, completeness and usability and not to
philosopuy. One to two weeks after receipt of the document, personal
interviews were conducted and the questionnaires were marked by the
reviewer. All noted and verbal comments were recorded.
All sections of the document received an 80% or better level of
acceptance in relation to clarity, completeness and useability and the
document was accepted as written. However, several suggestions were
incorporated in minor revisions such as word changes, format revision,
expansion of a section, and the addition of a Table of Contents and
References.
This report documents that the problem of communication can be
addressed and a solution offered which will aid all parties involved
in kindergarten facility planning.
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thank you is given to my chairperson, Dr. Anna C.
Seaman, who has unselfishly given many hours of time in counseling,
guiding and encouraging me in my doctoral pursuits.
When one has a committee as supportive, helpful and encouraging
as I have been priviledged to have, he or she is sure of success. To
each of my committee— Dr. Jack Campbell, Dr. Douglas Godwin, and Mr.
David Woodcock— goes my sincere thanks for your expertise which has
been freely given. You have always made time for my questions and
your attentive ear and counsel have been greatly appreciated.
The love, support, faith, and patience which my husband, Bob, has
shown me have been my strength and inspiration. The willingness to
help when and where needed and the interest shown in my endeavors by
my children— David, Patricia and Bill, John and Cindy— have made the
task load lighter. Now "Mom is through" and can do all those
postponed things.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................ 4

Purpose of the Study............................... 5
Definition of Terms ............................... 7
Organization of the Study .......................... 9
Assumptions . . . . . ............................. 9
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE........................ 11
Education........................................ 11
Introduction ..................................... 11
Child Growth and Development...................... 12
Learning Theories............................... 19
Characteristics of Five-Year-Olds ................ 31
Learning Environment............................. 34
Learning Centers ................................. 41
Architecture ...................................... 46
People and Their Environments .................... 46
Built Environment - School........................ 50
Programming..................................... 53
III METHODOLOGY...................................... 60
Organization ...................................... 60
Document Development............................... 61
Questionnaire Development .......................... 63
Sample............................................ 64
Administration ..................................... 65
Presentation of D a t a ............................... 66
Finalization of Document ............................ 66
IV FINDINGS.......................................... 67
Personal Information ............................... 68

Document Clarity and Completeness.................. 72
Introductory Segment ............................. 74
Introduction ................................... 74
Philosophy— Comments ............................ 77
How to Make This DocumentYours— Comments ......... 77
Questions— Comments............................ 78
Terms to Communicate— Comments.................. 78
Information Segment ............................. 79
Goals— Comments............................... 79
v ii
Facts— Comments............................... 82
Concepts— Comments ........................... 83
Needs— Comments............................... 83
Problem Statements Segment ........................ 84
Total Facility— Comments........................ 84
Learning Centers— Comments ...................... 87
(1) Art— Comments........................... 87
(2) Blocks— Comment......................... 87
(3) Manipulatives— C o m m e n t .................. 87
(4) Science— C o m m e n t ........................ 87
(5) Home, Library, Music, Outside,
Woodworking............................. 87
Learning Center Relationships Graph— Comments . . . 87
Final S e g m e n t ................................... 88
Materials and Equipment— Comments ............... 88
Additional Information— Comments ................ 91
Organization ...................................... 92
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 95
S u m m a r y .......................................... 96
Conclusions...................................... 97
Recommendations ................................... 97
REFERENCES................................................ 99
APPENDIX
A Letter to Architect Requesting Names for

Prospective Respondents and Letter of Reply ........... 107
B Sample Letter to Architects Requesting

Their Participation................................... 110
C Sample Letter to Persons in School Districts

Requesting Their Participation . . . .................. 112
D Sample of Postal Card Reply Which Prospective

Respondents Returned ................................. 114
E Letter to CBI Publishing Company Requesting

Permission to Use Specified Information and
Their Letter In R e p l y ................................. 116
F Cover Letter Accompanying Document ..................... 119
G Interview Questionnaire........... 121
H Document, An Approach to Programming for

Kindergarten Facilities ............................. 128
V I T A ....................................................... 202
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I Demographic and Personal Information

of Interviewees................................... 69
II Perceived Contributions as a Planning

Committee Member ................................... 73
III Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Clarity of the Introductory Segment of the
Programming Document ............................... 75
IV Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Completeness of the Introductory Segment of the
V Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Clarity of the Information Segment of the
VI Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Completeness of the Information Segment of the
VII Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Clarity of the Problem Statements Segment of the
VIII Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Completeness of the Problem Statements Segment of the
IX Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Clarity of the Final Segment of the
X Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the

Completeness of the Final Segment of the
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Civilizations have educated their children in a variety of
situations and for a variety of purposes. Education has been directed
by the home, synagogue, government, church and private groups and has
at various times been for boys only, boys and girls, the well-to-do,
the poor and all children. The idea of public education in the United
States grew slowly, many of the early schools being under church or
private control. Provision for education was left to the states, and
state constitutions began to provide for schools by the latter part of
the 18th Century (Knight, 1940).
A survey of New York State in 1844 described the majority of
schools as having "naked, deformed comfortless, dilapidated buildings"
(Knight, 1934, p. 416). One-third were judged to be in good repair,
one-third comfortable, while one-third were declared to be "unfit for
reception of man or beast" (Knight, 1934, p. 416). Even at the turn
of the century "the child’s own scale was not taken into
consideration, either practically or emotionally" (Roth, 1958, p. 26).
At the turn of the century, school buildings in the more affluent
districts began to show a design trend - Gothic, Renaissance or
Baroque - but in no way resembled a "functional" setting (Roth, 1958).
Formal education requires that special means of support be found.
The citations on the following pages follow the style of the

American Education Research Journal.
The more complex the social system into which the young are to be
inducted, the more elaborate and expensive the support required. This
support was slow in coming (Gross, Wronski, Stanley & Hanson, 1962).
The physical environment was taken for granted, being viewed as a
background. Gradually, the one or two room schoolhouse gave way to
larger boxes, divided into four or eight cubicles. The functional
role of the school building began to emerge after World War II, and by
the 1950s many features were being introduced to support the teacher
and learner in their endeavors: standards for lighting, carpet,
closed circuit TV, airconditioning and the use of acoustical
materials. In the 1960s windowless schools and "open space plans"
were introduced, and in the 1970s provisions for individualized
learning and computer assisted instruction were expressed needs
addressed in school plant planning (Castaldi, 1977). Today the
physical plant environment is seen by many as actively involved with
the ongoing processes of its users. Persons are either controlled by
the setting or the environment is "used" by the persons in it - both
things happen (Abarbanel, 1972). Educationally effective buildings
must be compatible with curriculum development. Conceptual planning
is perhaps one of the most important ingredients in the design of
educationally imaginative school buildings (Castaldi, 1977).

f
We are moving, in many schools, in the direction of developing
more adequate space for learning, although too many school buildings
continue to be built simply to house children with little thought or
attention given to the quality of the housing in terms of its edu
cational influence (Morphet, Johns & Reller, 1974). According to
3
Lilley (1978), the classroom and its individual learning spaces often
lack creative, responsible design. The well-conceived educational
facility should be designed as a complete educational tool. Bases for
decisions should be a knowledge of growth, development and needs of
its users and the fundamental principle of learning (Castaldi, 1977).
People have a personal space within which they function and
intruders are not tolerated. This space controls feelings and affects
attitude and performance (Sommer, 1969). Needs of privacy, status,
affiliation and success are fulfilled in social contexts in physical
settings (Proshansky, 1970). Kaplan and Kaplan (1978) stated that
living things must be active, both physically and mentally and that
even though we satisfy other needs, these needs will still exist.
"Man and his environment participate in molding each other" (Hall,
1966, p. 4).
Children are in the process of discovering space and how they
relate to it. McQuade (1959) observed that a child has trouble
separating himself from his surroundings and that "environment, if
anything, affects a child more, simply because he does take it for
granted as a part of his normal lot in life - absorbing it, soaking it
in" (p. 20). Children grow, build concepts and develop skills and
attitudes through interaction with their environments (Peller, 1978).
Teachers and children work together in classrooms which can
either support or impede goals (Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Foster &
Rogers, 1970). . . particular settings invite children to involve
themselves in particular activities, and the extent of children's
constructive participation in the activity will depend in large part
4
on how well certain concrete, measurable aspects of the surrounding
physical space meet their "hunger, attitudes and interests"
(Kritchevsky, Prescott & Walling, 1977, p. 5). Taylor (1978) tells us
that we need to address the crucial issue of the physical learning
environment as a support system for education. Osmon (1971) suggests
that planners of spaces for children should consider the daily program
and the parallel requirements for a physical environment. In an
environment scaled to his abilities (physical, mental, social and
emotional), a child can be more active and discover new dimensions of
his self (Peller, 1978). Environments carefully designed for the user
create a potential for learning, motivation, direction and
encouragement (Haase, 1968; Hymes, 1974). In architecture, there are
ho spectators; there are only participants (Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974)
and the same should be true in education.
Spivak (1974) believes we must seek to understand the world as a
child experiences it. The younger child has his own way of learning -
directly interacting with his environment (Hess & Croft, 1972). Every
level of education has its own specialized, particular problems, and
planners for facilities for young children need to be knowledgeable of
human growth and development (McClurkin, 1964; Taylor, 1978).
Children's learning spaces should say to them, and to their parents,
"we as a culture regard you highly" (Passantino, 1971, p. 406).
Statement of the Problem
Educationally creative schools do not just happen - they are
planned. The educational program of a given setting must be set forth
in a detailed, meaningful and concrete fashion so that space demands
are adequately determined. All of the objectives which the
administration hopes to accomplish should be clearly stated.
Community and parent aspirations must be sought. Users - described by
age, developmental and psychological characteristics and needs, size
and numbers - need to be identified. Supportive equipment and
materials must also be identified and described. This information
must be translated into a program which an architect can use to design
a facility which will support and enhance the learning situation.
The Texas Education Agency has identified, in Bulletin 696,
A Guide for the Education of Five-Year-Old Children in Texas, the
use of learning centers in the kindergarten classroom. There is
little that appears in the literature which translates educational
goals, children's needs and the use of learning centers into a program
format which could be used as a guide when planning new kindergarten
facilities or remodeling existing ones.
Dr. Victoria Bergen, Associate Commisioner of General Education
for Texas, stated that a document which translates learning center
philosophy to space needs does not exist and that a document of this
nature should aid school administrators, school board members,
teachers and others when planning for new or remodeled kindergarten
facilities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to construct a programming
document for use by administrators, school board members, teachers and
others when planning kindergarten facilities. The document is based
on the learning center philosophy, a concept which arranges the
physical facility into a variety of learning environments, allowing
for individual and small group work and placing responsibility on the
learner for self-direction. A review of Texas Education Agency
materials as well as research and writings in the field of early
childhood education was used to identify educational goals for
five-year-olds. User needs and characteristics - physical,
psychological, social and mental - were documented after searching
current literature in the areas of learning, early childhood growth,
development and education. State adopted materials, literature in the
field, kindergarten classrooms in existence, professionals in the
field and curriculum catalogs were used to identify and describe
equipment and materials which support and enhance the total
development of five-year-old children. Research and writing in the
fields of education and architecture were used to address numbers,
grouping, space and other physical considerations. All information
was written in concise, clear form and design requirements were
written as problem statements.
The document can be utilized by local planning groups as a
guide for gathering information and making local decisions regarding
kindergarten facilities, and for the writing of problem statements
which define local needs and objectives. It is hoped that the
document will aid in identifying needs and other considerations of
facility planning and result in the saving of time, money and
frustration and the achievement of a facility which best supports
kindergarten education. Users are urged to refrain from using this
document as it is, but instead are encouraged to take local
information and arrive at their own unique program.
Definition of Terms
Early Childhood Education - an umbrella term referring to the care and
instruction of children from birth through eight. For children,
it is a place to play and learn; for parents it is a partnership
in childrearing; for teachers, it is a professional choice; for
society, it is a cost (Law, 1982).
Kindergarten Education -a unique educational program which speaks to
the physical, intellectual, social and emotional needs of
five-year-old children.
Kindergarten Learning Facility - the setting in which children can
learn formally and informally. It should be attractive, clean,
well organized, flexible, interesting and planned to support the
users' age-level characteristics, size and needs. It should also
be designed to support the educational goals and philosophy of
the community.
Programming - an organized and rational process of gathering data,
employing client/user participation, and processing this data
into meaningful information to aid in decision-making for design.
Multi-sensory - provisions are made for challenging/involving all of
the senses - sight, sound, taste, touch, smell - which are major
vehicles for learning in the young child.
Learning Environment (Facility) - the setting in which children can
8
learn formally and informally. It should be attractive, clean,
well organized, flexible, interesting and planned to support the
users' age-level characteristics, size and needs. It should also
be designed to support the educational goals and philosophy of
the community.
Goals - Things which are wanted; achievements or accomplishments which
are desired. Effort toward attainment or accomplishment is
implied.
Facts - Information gathered from investigation and study which is
accepted to be true and is used as a basis for discussion and
decisions.
Concepts - Something imagined in the mind; an idea or notion one
wishes to see happen.
Needs - Requirement; something necessary, indispensable, lacking or
wanted. In building, these requirements are based on the unique
needs of the users in relationship to the physical, social,
intellectual and emotional supports of the environment. They
deal with adequacy, quality and organization of the space.
Problem Statement - The last step in information gathering! Clear,
concise statements which stress the uniqueness of the project.
They should anticipate solutions by stating problems that need
answers, giving useful information. Performance criteria!
Performance - Accomplish or fulfill agreed-upon requirements. How
something will work, be used, support or enhance.
9
Organization of the Study
Chapter One presents an overview of why the study was undertaken.
Chapter II contains two sections. Section One presents a review of
the literature in the field of education concerning growth and
development of young children, learning theories and learning centers.
Section Two presents a review of literature in the field of
architecture concerning space, the physical environment, school as a
learning environment and programming.
Chapter III provides a description of the population used in the
study, reason for the choice of sample population, questionnaire
development and administration information, methods employed in
development of the programming document and method used to analyze
data. The questionnaire findings are presented in Chapter IV.
Chapter V summarizes the questionnaire findings and provides
conclusions and recommendations based on the data. The questionnaire
and the document are included in the appendices.
Assumptions
This study was based on the following assumptions:
(1) A useful document could be constructed which would enhance
communication between designers and planning committee
members for districts endeavoring to follow the Texas
Education Agency state model for kindergarten.
(2) Literature in the field of education would be sufficient to
provide information concerning user needs and
10
enhance the total development of five-year-old children and
to support the learning center philosophy.
(3) Literature in the field of Architecture would be sufficient
to provide information concerning relationships between
facilities and their users, and identify elements to be
included in a Programming Document.
(4) Characteristics of the sample, school districts and
designers adequately represent the larger school district
and designer population.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Education
Introduction
People around the world have, for centuries, been learning many
things, in a variety of instances, with little thought as to why or
even how that learning occurred. Parents, peers, masters and "self"
have been the "teachers" and life situations the classrooms. However,
man has felt the need to "formally" educate his progeny and has
instituted a special environment for this purpose and called it
"school." "When schools were developed as special environments to
facilitate learning, teaching ceased to be so simple. The subjects
taught in school were different from the matters learned as part of
routine life in a tribe or society . . ." (Bigge, 1982), p. 5).
"The very nature of the educational process requires that if it
is effective, the child ought to be different as a result of his
experiences within it" (Spodek, 1970, p. 49). Bigge (1982) stated
that "Schools should attempt to teach students in such a way that they
not only accumulate many significant learnings applicable to life's
situations but that they also develop a technique for acquiring new
insights or understandings independently" (p. 18).
Several major theoretical views of the developing child have
exerted influence in our thinking, each having something important to
contribute to the discussion, each concentrating on different aspects
of his development. Piaget's cognitive development theory
12
concentrated on thinking, reasoning and problem solving, viewed
children moving through maturational stages of intellectual
development in cognitive functioning and assumed that knowledge was
acquired through active involvement with the world. Freud's
psychoanalytic theory emphasized emotional maturity, viewed biological
instincts and social experiences as being highly significant in
governing human behavior and saw motivation, adjustment and emotional
growth as the facets to be dealt with as the individual passes through
stages in the course of his development. Learning theorists have
sharp differences concerning the ways people learn and the influences,
biological and environmental, exerted upon learning. They can be
classified into major groups, behaviorists and cognitivists (Bigge,
1982).
Child Growth and Development
Jean Piaget, a Swiss developmental psychologist rather than a
learning theorist, observed, described and classified the cognitive
development of children. His work has had a profound, world-wide
impact on education and psychology. His identification of processes
which underlie and govern qualitative changes in thinking throughout a
child's development were of primary concern: "Perhaps Piaget's most
fundamental insight has been his understanding of the positive and
creative nature of all learning" (Hodgkin, 1976, p. 91).
Piaget's main task has been descriptive, to let us see how
children think" (Hodgkin, 1976, p. 93). He defined mature intelligent
behavior as the ability to reason and think critically, resting on a
13
hierarchy of developmental predecessors. His genetic epistemology is
devoted to a study of the developmental stages of children as they
relate to the acquisition of knowledge (Bigge, 1982). His view of
development defined distinct stages of intellectual growth beginning
in infancy with sensory-motor coordinations and ending with formal
reasoning in the mature adult. Genetic and experiential forces
interact to develop and refine cognitive structures. Each stage
extends the preceding stage, reconstructs cognition on a new level and
surpasses the earlier stage. Each stage is qualitatively distinct
(Evans, 1971).
Piaget defined intelligence as a form (or forms) of
equilibration, "toward which all cognitive functions lead"; and
equilibration as "a compensation for an external disturbance." The
fundamental idea of reversibility is implied; "this reversibility is
precisely what characterized the operations of the intelligence"
(Piaget, 1962, pp. 124-5).
Piaget identified four distinct, sequential stages: sensory-
motor (birth to 18 months or two years), preoperational thought (18
months or two years to seven years), concrete operational (seven to
eleven years) and formal operations (eleven years on) (Martorella,
Jensen, Kean, & Voelker, 1972; Evans, 1971; Piaget, 1962).
Piaget saw as influences the factors of neurological maturation,
physical and social experience and motivation (Evans, 1971). Key
processes for enlarging the stock of knowledge within the stages are
assimilation and accommodation (Martorella, Jensen, Kean, & Voelker,
1972).
Equilibrium, a state of harmony or compatibility with one's
environment, a psychological rest, is acquired by activity on the part
of a child (Martorella, Jensen, Kean, & Voelker, 1972). Piaget
assumed continuous interaction of the child with his environment,
assigning to the child an active role in making sense of the world in
which he lives and functions (Evans, 1971). As the child develops and
matures, he moves sequentially, but not at a fixed rate, through the
stages of cognitive development. This order, a distinct quality of
Piaget's theory is characterized by two features: invariance and
cumulative development.
Piagetian theory offers a comprehensive description of human
cognitive development. "One of the most fundamental educational
tenets offered by Piaget is that the development of intelligence must
occur through the activity of the child" (Robinson, 1980, p. 114).
"In short, at every level, experience is necessary to the development
of intelligence" (Piaget, 1962), p. 362).
Sigmund Freud, an Austrian physician and neuroscientist,
developed psychoanalysis in the late 1800s and early 1900s. His work
was based on neurological and biological assumptions. He saw a
connection between a large segment of psychoanalytic theory and
biological laws (Pribram & Gill, 1976).
Freud's metapsychological concepts reflect the structure and
function of the nervous system. He introduced the primary and
secondary processes, the ego, reality testing, drive and defense. He
developed a motivational theory of thinking and a theory of
consciousness. Two biological laws, attention and defense, were cited
15
as relevant (Pribram & Gill, 1976).
Freud believed that man is more emotional than rational and that
his instinctual desires run counter to civil demands; therefore, these
desires must be repressed. He felt that the change from pleasure to
unpleasure was at the heart of repression (Pribram & Gill, 1976).
Rosenfield (1970) quoted Freud: "Repression lies simply in turning
something away, and keeping it at a distance, from the conscious" (p.
37). The repressive process is highly individual (Rosenfield, 1970).
Freud identified three forces within man which control his life: id,
ego and superego (Erikson, 1963).
In wo-king with patients, Freud had them talk about their past,
going back, quite frequently, to childhood. He believed that actions
were a result of things which had happened in one's past; patients
responded to some event of which they were unconsciously aware
(Rosenfield, 1970). In Freud's early writings, he emphasized the
importance of the environment; then for almost two decades, he devoted
major emphasis to internal factors. This latter period coincided with
his work on infantile sexuality and the analysis of sexual instincts.
There then followed a period of rediscovery of the importance of the
external influences plus a consideration of the ego and defense
(Pribram & Gill, 1976).
Freud's identification of the conscious mental activities of the
mind opened a new door to the study of how people think and the
conflict that often occurs in one's mental life (Rosenfield, 1970).
Freud, in the Project, described feedback mechanisms that control
conscious awareness through selective attention. Recent cognitive
16
theorists, (i.e. Bruner, Pribram) propose similar ideas (Pribram &
Gill, 1976).
Freud believed two biological rules governed (determined) certain
aspects of the psychological functioning: attention and primary
defense. Attention is involved in guiding the ego. Perception,
quality, and indications of reality are processes involving feedback
controlled by attention. He said that the multiple alternative
pathways in the neurological structure of the system allow for
potential associative connections between external exigencies,
encogenous chemistry and the organism’s movement. They are limited by
two sets of feedback mechanisms: attentional and drive, both primary
processes (Pribram & Gill, 1976).
Freud considered thinking in terms of the development of a
skilled performance. Thought, a secondary process, encompasses
several types of thinking: practical, reproductive, recollecting,
reflecting, ordinary, judging, observing, cognitive, theoretical and
critical (Pribram & Gill, 1976).
Eric Erikson, psychoanalyst and teacher, is known for his
research on childhood. He viewed human development as an integration
of sociological, biological and psychological elements. Erikson's
(1963) emphasis on the child and the importance of this period of
development can be seen in the following statements: "It is human to
have a long childhood; civilized to have an even longer childhood" (p.
16) and "The playing child advances forward to new stages of mastery"
(p. 222).
17
Erikson defined the Eight Ages of Man:
Basic Trust vs Basic Mistrust: Drive and Hope

Autonomy vs Shame and Doubt: Self-control
and Willpower
Initiative vs Guilt: Direction and Purpose
Industry vs Inferiority: Method and Competence
Identity vs Role Confusion: Devotion and Fidelity
Intimacy vs Isolation: Affiliation and Love
Generativity vs Stagnation: Production and Care
Ego Integrity vs Despair: Renunciation and Wisdom
"The italicized, (underlined) words are called basic virtues
because without them, and their re-emergence from generation to
generation, all other and more changeable systems of human values lose
their spirit and their relevance" (p. 274). The negative stages are,
and remain, the dynamic counterpart of the positive ones throughout
life (Erikson, 1963). Erikson (1963) told us that lasting ego
identity must have a beginning with trust in infancy and fulfillment
with strength at each stage to integrate into social structures. The
kindergarten child has moved through stages one, two and three and
into stage four.
Erikson viewed the period of infancy as the time the child learns
basic trust:
The child learns who he is from what happens to

him, from the opportunities to deal with the
objects and events in his immediate world, and
from his own responses to the welter of stimuli.
His self-esteem represents his unique organization
of his own biological makeup, the evaluations made
of him by significant adults, and his own learning
from trial and manipulation and feedback from his
world. Cognitive development is inseparable from
personality development. (Erikson, 1963, p. 376).
"Holding on" and "letting go" come with muscular maturation and
experimentation at the second stage. "Outer control at this stage,
therefore, must be firmly reassuring." The child's violent desire to
make choices, appropriate and eliminate must be guided with love and
firmness. He must learn a sense of self-control without loss of
self-esteem (Erikson, 1963, pp. 251-2).
At stage three we find that "the child is at no time more ready
to learn quickly and avidly, to become bigger in the sense of sharing
obligation and performance than during this period of his development.
He is eager and able to make things cooperatively, to combine with
other children for the purpose of construction and planning, and he is
willing to profit from teachers and to emulate ideal prototypes"
(Erikson, 1963, p. 258).
At stage four children in all cultures receive some systematic
instruction. The child becomes ready to use the tools which literate
people in his society use: "the widest possible basic education for
the greatest number of possible careers. . . . School seems to be a
culture all by itself, with its own goals and limits, its achievements
and disappointment. The child's danger, at this stage, lies in a
sense of inadequacy and inferiority" (Erikson, 1963, pp. 259-60).
Erikson further states that "many a child's development is disrupted
when family life has failed to prepare him for school life, or when
school life fails to sustain the promises of earlier stages" (p. 260).
Play was seen by Erikson as a function of the ego; an attempt to
synchronize the bodily and the social processes with the self. In
play, the child reduces human data to a size and order he deems
19
manageable (Erikson, 1963). Evans (1971) stated that Erikson saw the
first six years of life as a time when personality development
occurred by means of volitional motor and social play.
"A theory of education should relate mainly to the nurture of
human young within a human culture. But there is no reason why its
roots should not penetrate the study of all teacher-learner systems
and draw on ethology, zoology, physiology and cybernetics" (Hodgkin,
1976, p. 57). Hodgkin (1976) further stated "Educational theory has
suffered from being kept in three isolated bottles marked philosophy,
sociology and psychology. It needs mixing and shaking if a more
interesting brew is to be made" (Preface).
Learning Theories
Learning theory can be classified into two broad families: (1)
Behavioristic - S/R (stimulus-response) condition theories, and (2)
Gestalt-field - Cognitive (cognition) theories (Bigge, 1982).
Behaviorists, stimulus-response condition theorists, believe that
overt behavior is a reflection of an organism's thought processes or
mental operations. They contend that human beings respond to cues
which provide the necessary stimuli that direct the person to a
subsequent movement. As responses are made to these cues, they are
"accumulated" along with the cues, to form a well-organized system or
chain of behaviors that reflect learning. The behaviors that occur
are believed to be reinforced through various reward systems (Simmons,
Whitfield, & Layton, 1980). Behaviors are non-purposive habit
formations, and are either respondent (reflexive) or operant
20
(controlled by consequences) (Bigge, 1982). Some behaviorists also
accept the premise that young children learn as a result of models or
persons in the family or community who demonstrate specific behaviors
which are mimicked by the young observers (Simmons, Whitfield, &
Layton, 1980).
To the S/R person, environment consists of all physical and
social surrounding; physical and psychological environments are
identical. His view of reality places physical objects and processes
in existence in their own right. The behaviorist says that experience
is the conditioning process by which a human organism either learns
new responses or changes old ones. No thought needs to have occurred,
and no insights need to have been developed. Perception is analogous
to photography. A person is a passive receiver of stimuli (Bigge,
1982).
The behaviorist believes motivation arises from either organic
drives or basic emotions, or from a tendency to respond that has been
established by conditioning. Thinking is symbolic or incipient
trial-and-error behavior that culminates in learning. In its broadest
sense, thinking behavior is both verbal and nonverbal and both overt
and covert. Words, other symbols and incipient movements become cues
for behavior (Bigge, 1982). Learning/behavior are interchangeable in
meaning and learning objectives are expressed in terms of observable
behavior (Bigge, 1982).
Four representative neobehaviorisms are Guthrie's contiguous
conditioning, Hull's deductive behaviorism or reinforcement theory,
Skinner's operant conditioning and Spence's quantitative S/R theory.
21
All four are alike in their emphasis upon a mechanical treatment of
stimuli and responses and agree that at no time is purposiveness
attributable to human behavior. They differ, however, in their
interpretation of S/R relationships that occur in learning procedures.
Guthrie considered learning to be single, simultaneous
occurrences of S/R. He had no place in his theory for reinforcement.
With Hull, stimulus preceded response. He viewed learning as being
stamped in through a process of repeated need or drive stimulus
reductions (Bigge, 1982).
Skinner acknowledged two kinds of learning - operant and
respondent (reflexive) but placed greater emphasis upon operant. The
essence of learning is response to modification (Bigge, 1982). In
operant conditioning, behavior is controlled by its consequences.
Emphasis is placed upon the stimulus that follows a response; the
stimulus producing the initial response is of no consequence. Skinner
said that psychology is a science of overt behavior and only overt
behavior and operated on the basic assumption that there is order in
nature and this includes human behavior. Behavior is caused and the
behavior that occurs is the only kind that could occur. Operant
reinforcement improves the efficiency of behavior and nearly all
behavior is a product of it. Skinner considered only past events to
be relevant to the prediction of behavior (Bigge, 1982).
Behaviorist theory developed largely from strictly controlled
laboratory experiments using animals. Although this research has
produced a great amount of important information, particularly
concerning the nervous system, theories based on these findings fail
22
to differentiate between an experimental and a real-life situation
(Hodgkin, 1976).
Gestalt-field psychology, the second of the major families, had
its roots in Germany in the work of Max Wertheirmer, Kurt Lewin,
Wolfgang Kohler and Kurt Koffka and was introduced into the United
States in the 1920s.
Learning is considered to be a reorganization of the learner's
psychological and perceptual world and his understanding represents
his perception of his physical environment (Bigge, 1982). A change in
observable behavior may be evidence that learning has occurred or is
occurring, but such behavioral change is not the learning itself.
Gestalt-field psychologists' concept of learning is that of a
process of nonmechanical development; it is purposive, explorative,
imaginative and creative. Insights, trial answers or hypotheses,
personal to the learner, are a part of all learning (Bigge, 1982).
Thinking, goal related problem solving, is considered by the
Gestalt-field theorist to be a reflective process in which a person
develops new understandings or insights or changes existing ones.
Reflective thinking uses both inductive and deductive processes in
finding, defining, elaborating and testing hypotheses and drawing
conclusions (Bigge, 1982). Reality is the way each person interprets
"his world," colored by the purposes and experiences he possesses.
Perceptions are highly selective, related to a person's immediate
purposes and his total situation and tied to meaning.
Experience, rooted in insightful behavior, holds a major place in
the learning theories of Gestalt-psychologists. Motivation is a
23
product of disequilibrium within a life space. The present has the
greatest impact; success and failure are motivators (Bigge, 1982).
Many times ideas are taken from more than one theory. If one
takes a position somewhere between them, he is classifield as
eclectic. Two eclectic behaviorisms are those of Robert M. Gagne's
Conditions of Learning and Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory.
However, sometimes a position is taken in which knowledge is modified,
new thinking added and a new position taken. This new systematic
outlook does not form a compromise, but an internally consistent and
more adequate theory and is described as an emergent synthesis. Thus
we have cognitive-field theory, developed from existing extreme
positions - active-subjective and passive-objective - on the moral and
actional nature of humans (Bigge, 1982).
Robert M. Gagne, a prominent educational psychologist, takes a
behavioristic eclectic approach to the psychology of learning,
centering on behaviorism plus apperception theory and cognitive field
theory (Bigge, 1982). He defined learning theory as behavioristically
oriented facts and principles of learning, established through
empirical research and related to one another by means of a conceptual
model (eclecticism, based on behaviorism) (Bigge, 1982). Gagne (1977)
said he did not present a theory of learning, but drew some general
concepts from various theories. His main concern was "to find a
reasonable answer to the question, 'What is learning'" (Gagne, 1977,
p. 3). The kind of change we call learning exhibits itself as a
change in behavior. The change may be, and often is, an increased
capability for some type of performance. It may also be an altered
24
disposition of the sort called "attitude" or "interest" or "value."
It must be capable of being retained over some period of time and be
distinguishable from that attributable to growth (Gagne, 1977). Gagne
(1977) said that instruction is made up of events, external to the
learner, which are designed to promote learning.
"When the outcomes of learning are deliberately planned, the
events of instruction can likewise be planned to achieve these
outcomes" (Gagne, 1977, p. 70). Gagne proposed two types of
conditions for learning: internal and external. Some conditions are
common to all kinds of learning and some are specific to the nature of
what is being learned (Gagne, 1977). They deal with the ways the
central nervous system processes stimuli. This can be defined as
Ss-R, S = external stimulus, s = accompanying internal proprioceptive
stimulation and R = external response (Bigge, 1982, p. 144). Gagne
proposed eight conditions of learning - (1) signal learning, (2)
stimulus-response learning, (3) chaining, (4) verbal association, (5)
discrimination learning, (6) concept learning, (7) rule learning and
(8) problem solving. He viewed type 1 as reasonably important in its
own right, but not a prerequisite to any of the other seven. The
rest, however, are hierarchic. Gagne (1977) also proposed eight
phases of an act of learning - (1) motivation, (2) apprehending, (3)
acquisition, (4) retention, (5) recall, (6) generalization, (7)
performance, and (8) feedback. Each phase has its internal process
and external events which influence it (Gagne, 1977). To Gagne,
instructing means arranging the proper conditions of learning that are
external to the learner (Bigge, 1982). "A Gestalt-field theorist
25
would interpret Gagne's position as providing an inadequate
psychological basis for reflective teaching and learning" (Bigge,
1982). Five major varieties of learning outcomes, according to Gagne
(1977), are (1) intellectual skills (2) cognitive strategies, (3)
verbal information, (4) motor skills, and (5) attitudes. He says that
a learning task analysis should precede any instructional plan for
learning.
Social learning theory is a marriage of behavioral theory plus
information processing theory; cognitive psychology plus behavior
modification. Albert Bandura said there is a continuous reciprocal
interaction of personal and environmental determinants (Robinson,
1980; Bigge, 1982). Social learning theorists have as a goal the
production of individuals that are critical, creative, inventive and
discoverers. They attempt to achieve these goals with methods of
instruction such as modeling, verbal instruction, explanation and
feedback, and opportunities for guided practice. They question the
desirability of self-discovery in many aspects of education (Robinson,
1980).
This theory uses both behavioristic and humanistic terminology to
explain human function. The informative and incentive values of
consequences of past behavior are the determinates of future behavior,
to a large degree. It proposes a continuous reciprocal interaction
between personal and environmental determinants; there is a mutual
exchange. Humans do not simply respond to stimuli; they interpret
them! These patterns are learned; they are acquired by either direct
or observational reinforcing experiences (Bigge, 1982).
26
Social learning theory is concerned not only with acquisition of
behavior but also with activation and channelization of bheavior.
People are thinking individuals who have the capability for
self-direction; they are information processing and interpreting
individuals and operate on the basis of insightful expectations.
Awareness is a powerful facilitator. The theory involves goal setting
and attainment and deals with ways people can shape environmental
conditions for their purposes; some are better than others, due to
personal factors such as endowed peronalities, acquired competencies,
reflective thought and a high level of self initiative (Bigge, 1982).
Consequences of behavior determine (reinforce) mainly through
their informative and incentive values; they create insightful
expectations. Learning is centered in this reinforcement process.
There are three levels of reinforcement; (1) direct external, (2)
vicarious reinforcement and (3) self-administered reinforcement.
Bandura felt people learn and retain much better by the use of
cognitive aids which they generate rather than repetitive reinforced
performances (Bigge, 1982).
Cognitive-field learning theory is a current emergent synthesis
in which the meaning of learning focuses on the aspects of a person's
interaction with his contemporaneous psychological environment. The
theory draws heavily from the pioneer work of Kurt Lewin, with recent
contributions made by the research and ideas of Albert Bandura,
Richard de Charms, Edward L. Deci, Jerome B. Bruner, Walter Mischel
and Bernard Weiner (Bigge, 1982). It is a situational or ahistorical
approach to the study of human behavior and motivation. Moreover,
27
contemporaneity is an essential feature.
Cognitive-field theory features: (1) an emphasis upon
psychological functions rather than upon objects, (2) focus upon
contemporaneous situations, (3) a relativistic-interactional approach
to an understanding of perception and (4) the interpretation of
intelligent behavior as being purposive (Bigge, 1982). Behavior is
seen as psychological locomotion, takes place in life space, rather
than observable space and is verbal and symbolic. It may be equated
with experience and is the result of interaction of several pertinent
features of concrete situations. A person interprets and uses his
environment and both are changed; a simultaneous mutual relation of a
person and his pyschological environment - SMI. Events of the future
are seen as only anticipatory and those of the past only "indirect";
conditions existing at the time behavior occurs activate the
psychological reactions of the person (Bigge, 1982).
Cognitive-field psychologists define intelligence as ". . .the
ability to respond in present situations on the basis of cogent
anticipation of possible consequences and with a view to controlling
the consequences that ensue" (Bigge, 1982, p. 220). Learning is the
enhancement of one’s intelligence and all of its forms - development
of logical organization, social insight, appreciation, information and
skills - contribute to this enhancement. According to cognitive-field
theory, a person learns through differentiating, generalizing and
restructuring both his person and his psychological environment in
order to acquire new or changed insights, understandings or meanings.
He thus achieves changes in motivation, group belongingness, muscular
skills, time perspective and ideology.
The cognitive-field psychologist does not view a child as
"unfolding" according to nature, or being passively conditioned to
respond in a desired manner. Rather, he views the individual as
differentiating and restructuring himself, at his level of maturity
and comprehension, and his psychological environment; he is gaining
insights.
Cognitive-field theory is built around the purposes that underlie
behavior, the goals involved in behavior and the person's processes
and means of understanding. Overt behavior is seen as evidence of
learning, but not learning itself. Its formula might read B = f(P,E),
or behavior = function of a person and his psychological environment
(Bigge, 1982). To the cognitive-field person, two people of seemingly
equal intelligence and "identical" situations and backgrounds can
actually be very different within their psychological environments
(Bigge, 1982).
The cognitive-field based theory of Jerome S. Bruner is a
cognitive-oriented eclectic position. A cognitive learning and
developmental psychologist, Bruner spearheaded research into human
perception, motivation, learning and thinking. He viewed humans as
"information processors," "thinkers" and "creators." His major
contributions are the collection of a wealth of empirical research
plus the contribution of a great deal of his own (Bigge, 1982).
Bruner's is a prescriptive theory and stresses the need for
developing a program, backed by empirical observation, which tells us
what to do in order to assist learning (Hodgkin, 1976). He viewed
29
the provision of "aids and dialogues for translating experience into
systems of notation and ordering" as the heart of the educational
process. He believed that a theory of development must be linked to a
theory of knowledge plus a theory of instruction (Hodgkin, 1976, p.
93). Learning involves three almost simultaneous processes: (1)
acquisition of new information, (2) transformation of knowledge and
(3) check of the pertinence and adequacy of knowledge.
The knowing process has two parts: (1) a person's knowledge of
the world is based on his constructed models of reality, and (2) such
models are first adopted from one's culture, then they are adapted to
one's individual use (Bigge, 1982). Mental growth is like a staircase
with rather sharp risers; there are spurts and rests. The learner
proceeds through three systems of skills - modes of representation -
which promote the process of storage/retrieval: enactive, iconic and
symbolic. Each mode depends on the previous one for development and
all continue throughout one's lifetime. Representations, (generalized
insights) collectively constitute a person's model of reality (Bigge,
1982).
Bruner envisioned learning as connecting things that are akin and
placing them into structures that give them significance. Acquisition
of knowledge depends upon an active process of construction. To
Bruner, the purpose of education is to provide skills or tools.
Schools should encourage students to discover the value of their own
"guesses," foster self-propulsion by enabling students to deal
directly with materials and practice problem-finding and
problem-solving, help the child to develop a sense of reflection and
30
aid in the interaction of students with teachers (Bigge, 1982).
Bruner saw instruction as having the goal of making
self-sufficient learners and defined discovery as being all the ways
of obtaining knowledge for oneself by using one's mind. He felt
problem solving should be developed and should ultimately become
intrinsic (Bigge, 1982). Bruner once remarked that "any subject can
be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child
at any stage of development" (Martorella, Jensen, Kean, & Voelker,
1972, p. 84). His ideas are often alluded to as "spiral curriculum."
Bruner named three things that a theory of instruction should
speak to: (1) the nature of persons as knowers, (2) the nature of
knowledge and (3) the nature of the knowledge-getting process. He
named five major aspects a theory of instruction should cover: (1)
the optimal experiences to predispose learners to learn, (2) a
structuring of knowledge for optimal comprehension, (3) specification
of optimal sequences of presentation of materials to be learned, (4)
the role of success and failure and the nature of reward and
punishment, and (5) procedures for stimulating thought in a school
setting (Bigge, 1982).
R. A. Hodgkin, professor at Oxford, approached a theory of
learning by building on Piaget, Bruner and Shotter. He modified
Bruner's scheme, classifying four modes of instruction. He felt
Bruner was remiss in not elaborating the fundamental mode of initial
learning through which an infant first makes sense of his experiences
- through other people - especially its mother. Secondly, he stated
that Bruner's term 'symbolic' can create problems of meaning and
31
proposed that a more suitable term might be 'linguistic,' 'semiotic,'
or 'articulate.' Thus he defines his modes: (1) interpersonal mode,
(2) enactive mode, (3) iconic mode and (4) semiotic mode (Hodgkin,
1976). He illustrated graphically how Piaget's stages and Bruner's
modes (amplified by him) are complimentary and emphasized the
interaction, yet distinction, that should exist. He spoke of a
frontier concept common to both: to the learner, existential reality;
to the teacher, a useful conceptualization of the limits of a
learner's system. Hodgkin (1976) said of the theory: "The approach
to theory explored here starts from the view that an infant, or any
other learner, is essentially active and questioning. This leads to a
rejection of the idea of knowledge as facts and of any static notion
of an 'educated' man" (Hodgkin, 1976, Preface).
No single theory is adequate to explain the processes of
learning. Rather, an integration of ideas resulting in an eclectic
approach or an emergent synthesis resulting in a new theory seems most
viable. Although many educators are eclectic in their approach to
teaching/learning, they usually have an emphasis which can be
classified as predominantly behavioristic or cognitive. Reported
research shows evidence to support the belief that children and
teachers have various cognitive styles that should be identified
(Simmons, Whitfield, & Layton, 1980).
Characteristics of Five-Year-Olds
In describing children, people tend to use words that fit their
view of the child. If they believe biological factors are primary in
32
their development, they tend to use terms which describe emotional
and/or physical characteristics; if they see cognition as foremost,
they will choose words that describe knowing, understanding, inquiry.
Many see the child as a person with both biological and cognitive
aspects as important, one not dominating over another.
Ramsey and Bayless (1980) stated that it is a demanding task to
describe the five-year-old entering kindergarten. He is eager,
active, curious, questioning, an investigator, untiring, capable of
self-criticism, ready for some responsibility, a creature of feelings
who laughs and cries easily. Kindergarteners are becoming
independent, are outgoing and have begun cooperative play. They plan,
becoming very involved if given time, and are refining their large and
small motor skills (Hildebrand, 1975). Hymes (1974) described them as
being the most eager age ever to walk into a school, wanting to see,
touch, handle and use, taste, sniff and test for themselves. Widmer
(1970) called the young child "a symphony of movement and sound" and
said his learning is an active, not passive, process (p. 106).
A child’s learning pace is slower than that of an adult, thus he
must be allowed the time to practice and explore (Todd and Heffernan,
1977). Wann, Dorn & Liddle (1962) said children use their environment
to grow physically and mentally; they are collectors of information
and understand in many ways. Boehm (1961) said children need to look
at objects and handle them. They learn through their senses;
reasoning is linked to action.
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY BULLETIN 696 lists the kindergartener's
characteristics in four categories: physical, intellectual, social
and emotional. It emphasizes the individuality of each child but
states that characteristics follow a broad general pattern.
Physical; grows rapidly, is active but tires

easily, has a short attention span, has better
control over large muscles than small muscles,
generally has developed hand preference, has
difficulty focusing eyes sharply on an object, is
learning to control an increasing number of
language forms, is susceptible to communicable
disease and colds.
Intellectual: is learning to listen purposefully

and without interruptions, is highly imaginative
and creative, is curious about the world in which
he lives, expands experimentation and control of
communication, learns through use of the five
senses, learns through concrete and direct
experiences rather than abstractions, has limited
powers to learn to organize, to generalize, and to
draw relationships.
Social: is ready and eager for new experiences,

seeks companionship of other children, is an
attentive observer or eager participant, is ready
to share and work with others, is curious about
his world as it relates to him, is eager to gain
approval.
Emotional: needs a sense of belonging, needs a

feeling of security, has a strong emotional link
with home and family, is growing in emotional
stability, is developing a self-image, is
developing inner self-control, is developing sex
identity, is learning his sex role.
Concepts, the nucleus of a child's thinking process, make it
necessary for him to have a breadth of experiences with concrete
objects in a multi-sensory situation so that these concepts can be
developed (Widmer, 1970; Todd & Heffernan, 1977). Heffernan (1960)
tells us that concepts are significant learnings and vastly more
important to the young child's development than the academic skills of
34
reading and mathematics.
Ramsey and Bayless (1980) stated that "self-activity and
experiencing are still a young child’s best means of learning and
acquiring facts and concepts" (p. 54). Concept has been defined as "a
continuum of inferences by which a set of observed characteristics of
an object or event suggest a class identity, and then additional
inferences about other unobserved characteristics of the object or
event" (Martorella, Jensen, Kean, & Voelker, 1972, p. 5). We have
also been told that "concepts enable us to simplify and organize our
environment and to communicate efficiently with others" (Martorella,
Jensen, Kean, & Voelker, 1972, p. 20). Concept learning is, and
likely will remain, an important focus in education. Attention to
both the affective and cognitive states of learners will be very
important as we design instruction for concept learning (Martorella,
Jensen, Kean, & Voelker, 1972).
Learning Environment
Physical space must be designed to support the learning which is
expected to occur there (Abbot, Galina, Granger, & Kelin, 1976; Foster
& Rogers, 1970; E. Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; McClintock, J. & R.,
1970; Sebolt, 1975). An essential first step in planning a facility
is the development of educational specifications. Day (1980) gave the
following considerations, which he said need to be clearly stated:
programs to be housed - types of spaces and

activities in these spaces.
provision for flexibility - to handle subject or

methodology changes.
educational objectives
furnishings, equipment and media to be used
relationships between/among educational activities

(pp. 10-13)
Morphet, Johns and Reller (1974) stated that in many communities
the "schoolhousing program" goes forward with too little time spent on
the development of the educational program which should be the base
for decisions on needs in the housing. Sebolt (1975), in discussing
the Learning Center in Old Sturbridge, Mass., said that the building
does what a building should do; it organizes space to correspond to
and develop the objectives of the program. Every level has its own
specialized problems, and in the lower levels it is knowledge of human
growth and development (McClurkin, 1964). Cruickshank and Quay (1970)
said that "Few school buildings are conceptualized, designed and
constructed to meet the learning needs of the children for whom the
structure is intended" (p. 261). They cited a lack of research as
being a major problem. Detailed, specific knowledge is needed
concerning program description, relationships between students,
teachers, others and circumstances under which various teaching occurs
(Cruickshank & Quay, 1970).
Getzels (1974) declared: "The classrooms we envision for our
children represent not only conceptions of spaces for learning but
also our conceptions of the learner. These classrooms teach lessons
of their own; they tell the child who he is supposed to be (or at
least who we think he is) and how he is supposed to learn" (p. 538).
Rogers (1975) spoke of an unrecognized environmental curriculum which
36
is in every school and speaks louder than any words we can utter. He
saw it teaching children many things about the world in which they
live. Proshansky and Wolfe (1974) also shared this idea, saying that
design and arrangement of space communicate a symbolic message of
expectations; it often dictates grouping and affects communication; it
can facilitate or interfere. Kritchevsky, Prescott and Walling (1977)
said that good space makes it easy for goal-related behavior to occur;
it allows staff greater freedom of choice in teaching activities. In
an environment scaled to his abilities (physical, mental, social and
emotional) a child can be more active and discover new dimensions of
his self (Peller, 1978).
David (1974) told us that "environmental awareness" has become a
catch phrase for those dealing with the built environment and its
effects on human behavior. It should be of direct concern to
educators as they look at how the environment of the school responds
to and affects the needs of its users. He identified four types of
environmental awareness; 1) ecological, 2) behavioral, 3) sensory and
4) consumer, and said that they seek to make one more conscious of the
importance of physical surroundings. Haase (1968) said that "a child
reacts and responds to his environment far more energetically and
immediately than does an adult" (p. 13). This fact reinforces the
need for greater attention to facilities which house them for many
hours. We should "provide an environment which is a complement to the
child’s intelligence . . . and which can give him the opportunity to
develop the independence so needed in our society today" (Peller,
1978, p. 35).
37
Usually man is defined as the actor and the environment as the
support, but this one-way view is not warranted (David, 1974).
Churchill once said "We shape our buildings and afterwards our
buildings shape us" (Getzels, 1974, p. 538). We can also recall
Piaget's conception of a continual interaction between the child and
his environment. Raph (1978), in addressing the use of Piaget's
theories in instruction, stated that we are becoming aware of how the
learning environment facilitates the process of children moving from
one level of understanding to another. David (1974) quotes Propst as
describing "two intersecting planes of reality" on which school
environments operate. First is school as a physical structure which
provides shelter and support for educational activities, and second is
school as the facility relates to its occupants - the messages it
sends them about themselves, the opportunities it affords them, the
impressions and experiences it gives them concerning the world in
which they live and their perceptions of themselves within that world.
"Space does not communicate in an identical way to all children;
cultural, as well as individual, differences in experience may affect
their perceptions" (Kritchevsky, Prescott & Walling, 1977, p. 34).
School buildings communicate continuously with the community.
They are visible day by day and create an impression aesthetically, as
well as giving an image of the educational program occurring within
(Hawkins & Stack, 1978). Castaldi (1977) wrote that the "school
building is much more than a shelter for its occupants. It is a
complete educational tool" (p. 3). He points out that educational
facilities must be planned to facilitate the type of teaching/learning
38
situations that will be occurring within, and must also be planned to
handle change which might occur in the future.
School administrators must work to create environments consonant
with what has been learned about children, learning and the kinds of
experiences which tie them together (Thomas, 1968). They must ask at
least two basic questions: (1) what should happen in school? and (2)
how can we plan an environment to encourage the desired behaviors
(Perley & Martin, 1975)?
At the turn of the century the child was looked upon as an
ideationally empty organism which learned in response to specific
stimuli determined by the teacher. She was the center of learning and
was at the front of the room with pupils in straight rows or chairs
facing forward, fastened to the floor. This learner was replaced by
an active organism and learning was perceived as a dynamic process.
Classes shifted to movable chairs with the teacher at the side of the
room. The next period envisioned the learner as a social organism and
learning as a social or group process and the classroom used circles,
where each group member could see and respond to all other. Today we
see the learner as being both a problem-finding and problem-solving
individual; a stimulus-seeking and stimulus-reducing individual and
the open classroom as an appropriate place for him to learn (Getzels,
1974).
Educational planning is not a list of rooms with square footage,
it is the formulation of activities to be housed; descriptions of
activities which will occur; needs of users; identification of
materials to be used (Taylor, 1978). Evans (1971) told us that a
39
perceptive review of cognitive-development theories will lend support
to the criticalness of the arrangment of the young child's environment
to support play activities. This is supported by M. Brenner (1976)
and Haase (1968). Castaldi (1977) emphasized the importance of
directly applying the principles of learning in all planning of the
instructional elements of the facility.
Environment should be organized on three dimensions: (1) space
mastery, (2) space orientation, and (3) space as stimulus (Hildebrand,
1975; Day & Sheehan, 1975). Consideration should be given aesthetics,
durability, economy, efficiency, availability, safety and convenience
(Zelip, 1968; Peller, 1978; Strevell, 1972). Sonic, visual and
thermal environments should be addressed (Abend, Bednar, Froehlinger,
& Stenzler, 1979; Zelip, 1968; Cherry, 1976). Everything about the
design should enhance the learning process - doors, walls, floor
surfaces (Waligura, 1972). Flexibility on four parameters should be
planned for: expandable, adaptable, convertible, and useable (Brubeck
& Vanston, 1974; Skutch, 1975; Rogers, 1975). Spaces should exist for
individual, small group and large group activities (Brenner, N.D.,
1977; Alward, 1973). A variety of well-defined areas should provide
for activities both quiet and noisy, messy and non-messy (Hess &
Croft, 1972; Molloy, 1975; Foster & Rogers, 1970; Peller, 1978).
The number, age and characteristics of the users should be
identified (McClintock, J. & R., 1970). The scale of the children is
an important consideration (Kohn, 1970; Peller, 1978; Foster & Rogers,
1970). Finishes should be durable and easily repaired and able to be
cared for with the children's assistance (Strevell, 1972; Foster &
40
Rogers, 1970).
The facilities must speak to three areas of need: storage;
physical care and play; and other learning experiences (Cherry, 1976;
Brown, 1975; Peller, 1978; Todd & Heffernan, 1977; Abend, Bednar,
Froehlinger, & Stenzler, 1979). Skutch (1975) emphasized that all
learning materials need homes. Strevell (1972) said that when
planning, it is important to have the dimensions of materials and
equipment in order to provide adequate work and storage spaces.
Attention should be given the outside areas - open areas, covered
areas, planted areas, apparatus areas - providing for creativity,
exploration, contemplation and motor development (Frost, 1968; Rouard
& Simon, 1977; Haase, 1968). Transition between inside and outside
learning areas and access to amenities from either area must be
provided (Foster & Rogers, 1970; Hess & Croft, 1972; Osmon, 1971;
Abend, Bednar, Froehlinger, & Stenzler, 1979). Also, traffic patterns
for arriving persons and vehicles must be set (Hess & Croft, 1972;
Abend, Bednar, Froehlinger, & Stenzler, 1979; Osmon, 1971).
"The investment a community makes in its schools is a declaration
of its intention to meet tomorrow’s challenges" (Foster & Rogers,
1970). Educators have a great responsibility to make known the needs
and characteristics of their students, to clarify educational goals
and determine instructional methods and then to work toward facilities
which support these. "It is clear that a serious waste of public
funds occurs when a school building is constructed containing
facilities which are not needed or omits those which are necessary"
(Day, 1980, p. 1).
41
Learning Centers
For the younger child, movement and interaction are natural as he
functions normally, and the learning center philosophy supports this.
A learning center is any area where children engage in a variety of
activities and experiences peculiar to the nature of that center. It
offers choices, multi-leveled, and strives to meet the personal needs
and interests of potential users (Forte & Mackenzie, 1972). Centers
help develop self-directed learners to become responsible - for
themselves and to others, allow children to make choices, try
different ways of doing a thing or learning about something, and
support them in locating and organizing their own materials (Davidson,
1978).
"Schools are desirably and necessarily artificial, contrived,
selective" (Wesley, 1969, p. 337).
Our rhetoric has long expressed the need for

enhancing individuality, fostering creativity, and
assisting children to become independent
learners. Mere rhetoric is not enough. The time
has come to create valid psychological and
physical environments that promote those
ends. Such environments - free and always
changing - should reflect contemporary society and
of necessity contribute to the changing role of
the teacher. (Perrone, 1970, p. 16)
Thomas (1975) tells us that it is a well established fact that a
pupil’s readiness to learn is a result of complex interrelationships
involving his maturational development, his previous learning
experiences, the attitude he has toward the learning situation and the
amount of importance he places on the experience. Bloom has suggested
42
that the years from birth to age seven or eight are ones of greatest
psychosocial, physical and intellectual growth and development (Day &
Allen, 1970).
Raph (1978) stated that the use of Piaget's theories in education
11. . . suggests provisions for concrete experiences enabling children
(a) to explore the novel and the familiar; (b) to reconstruct mentally
and to reflect on their actions; (c) to deal with attributes of
objects, groupings, relationships, correspondences, transformations;
(d) to order material in varied types of series; and (e) to establish
meanings among phenomena of space, time and causality" (p. 2).
The White House Conference of 1960, in addressing the development
of behavior and personality, said:
Our information on selection suggests that we

should set up environments that permit a wide
range of activities in the earlier years. There
are two reasons for this. Since traits and
abilities have low correlations with one another,
it follows that the person needs to explore
himself and his environment in order to determine
his potentialities. Next, since the process of
development is one of organization in which simple
units are put together into more complex patterns,
it follows that a broad base of experience will
facilitate higher levels of final organization. A
rich and varied environment offers better
possibilities for selection than does a limited
and narrow one and permits the person to move from
breadth of concern to depth of concern.
(Anderson, 1960, p. 61)
A learning center can occur inside or outside, exist for one or
several children and be temporary or permanent. Considerable thought
andplanning must go into the organization of a center, its materials
A3
and activities, considering the specific needs of the users (Thomas,
1975). Areas should be defined, all materials for use made easily
accessible and consideration should be taken concerning movement
patterns within and between centers (Abbott, Galina, Granger, & Klein,
1976). Five issues, variables, in planning learning centers are size,
function, boundaries, materials, and working facilities (Alward,
1975).
Children learn at different rates, in different situations or
settings and under different instructional strategies and because of
this, teacher behavior, curriculum content and organizational schemes
must be variable (Freimeyer & Galloway, 1970). "The learning center
approach can provide the freedom of movement needed for children to
experiment, to question and to deal with their own intellectual
curiosity in their own way, at their own rate" (Forte & MacKenzie,
1972). Thomas (1975) told us that provision should be made for
activities which give practice in the use of observation, exploration
and inquiry skills. Sensory-motor activities which call for definite
movement and response and lead toward definite ends are valuable.
". . . the discriminatory and intellectual skills developed through
multisensory experiences in the learning centers you establish are
important to your pupils' everyday life" (p. 12).
The organization of learning centers takes a variety of forms;
the design must provide for the materials and equipment within and
work surfaces and spaces needed for tasks or experiences desired to
happen there (Forte & MacKenzie, 1972). Centers should have display
surfaces for pictures and other teaching aids and for children's work,
and these should be located at the child's eye level for his optimum
use. Materials should be attractive, to draw the interest of the
children; sturdy, to hold up under repeated use; and arranged for ease
of use (Widmer, 1970).
Storage for materials should be readily accessible to the
children and clearly defined (Forte & MacKenzie, 1972). Equipment
should be safely and conveniently placed (Widmer, 1970). "Perhaps
even more valuable than the efficient assistance to the creative
process itself . . . is the efficiency of the process of storage.
Deciding where to look for a needed object or where to put a
contributed object is a valuable exercise in analysis!"
(Sunderlin, 1967).
Forte and MacKenzie (1972) told us that we should consider the
following things when planning the location and arrangement (design)
of a center: activities that will occur there (quiet/noisy,
active/passive, messy/neat); equipment and materials and related
storage and work surfaces for these; group size (number of users at
any one time); traffic patterns; ventilation; light; unique needs;
aesthetics (clean, neat (uncluttered), attractive). Elliott and
Woodfin (1970) said the teacher should diagnose the spaces available
within and around the classroom, asking some of the following
questions to determine what can be done to make the most of spaces and
to increase efficiency: (1) where can a child work alone/be alone to
just think?, (2) what provisions can be made for groups to work and be
separate from the rest of the class?, (3) what seating arrangements
can be used other than chairs (i.e., floor, cushions, mats, benches)?,
45
(4) can space be created where children can work away from your 'eagle
eye'? (5) Where can equipment be set up for children to work with
(i.e., record players with earphones, listening posts, video-tape
reruns, slide projectors, cassettes, language masters, tone bells,
science equipment, . . ?, (6) what spaces outside your room can be
used (i.e., halls, multi-purpose areas, neighborhood)?
A much neglected area is the outside area, often referred to as
the playground. M.L. Brockett, former Commissioner of Education in
Texas, stated that the publication, Development of a Play
Environment, raised questions about traditional concepts and
described a more flexible, creative outdoor environment. The
publication, under the direction of Dr. Joe Frost, suggested the need
for capitalizing on the possibilities of this area as a learning
environment, carrying many of the inside experiences into the freer
atmosphere of the out-of-doors and taking advantage of the many
opportunities for learning possible in an outdoor environment (Texas
Education Agency, 1978).
Thomas (1975) told us that "Attracting pupils to a learning
center is not a happy accident. Considerable thought and planning
must go into the organization of each center so that (1) activities
appeal to students, and (2) its direction, scope and sequence are
sufficiently understood (p. 82). A learning center, for success, must
fit into the instructional plan. Ideas must be clarified; educational
purposes determined; tasks defined. Decisions must be made concerning
who will go there, when, and how many; location of materials;
equipment and furnishings; permanency of the center (Fisk & Clay,
1974). When centers are in operation, evaluation should begin and
should be ongoing (Fisk & Clay, 1974; Hymes, 1974). Hymes (1974) said
that when it is observed that less innovation or involvement is
occurring, it is time to bring out new things, store some of what is
out and put other things into new areas, creating new relationships.
Osmon (1971) emphasized the maintenance of the "internal functional
integrity" of each center.
Architecture
People and Their Environments
Place, said Canter (1977), is a result of relationships between
actions, conceptions and physical attributes. "Man's sense of space
is closely related to his sense of self, which is an intimate
transaction with his environment" (Hall, 1966, p. 60). Proshansky
(1970) postulated that a person's behavior can be considered to be
caused by three things - his genetic endowment, the history of his
interactions with environments and his existing environment. Hall
(1966) described two types of arrangements which produced different
user reactions: socio-fugal and sociopetal. Watson (1970) described
three levels of proxemic behavior: infracultural, precultural and
microcultural. Hall (1966) placed visual space as greatest, followed
by auditory. He stated that people of different cultures perceive
space differently; various space zones - public, social, personal and
intimate - cause different responses. We need to think of man as
surrounded by a series of expanding and contracting fields which
provide him many kinds of information (Hall, 1966).
47
Proshansky (1970) characterized man as being an "aroused and
active organism who defines, interprets and searches his physical
environment for relevant ways of achieving his goals . . . attempting
to organize his physical environment so that it maximizes his freedom
of choice" (p. 175). Kaplan and Kaplan (1978) noted that involvement
and making sense are two facets of a person's experience with
environment. They further stated that humans are at their best when
coping and problem solving.
All sense modalities are affected by the space humans occupy -
luminous, sonic, olfactory, tactile (plus thermal) (Esser, 1971).
Identity is closely connected with the experience of place
(Norberg-Schulz, 1971). "Young children, even infants, are much more
influenced by their surroundings than old children and their behavior
patterns are more directly affected by environment" (Passantino, 1978,
p. 5). Children set their own 'barriers' and sometimes treat others,
especially adults, as non-persons (Sommer, 1969). As children grow,
their personal space grows (Porteous, 1977).
Smith (1974) said that different kinds of physical environments
encourage different kinds of behavior and we need to learn much more
about this. Canter (1974) stated that many institutions are based on
goals which assume that children are different from adults and
architects need to know how. He proposed that they differ with age
(theories of development) and with behavior (heredity, environment or
both). In conclusion he wrote, " . . . whether the architect wishes it
or not, it" (relationship with the building) "will always be an
interaction, never simply a reaction" (p. 69).
48
People like spaces they can call their own and make over. Most
reactions to division of space are on an emotional rather than a
rational level (Sommer, 1969). Feelings of frustration, crowding and
aggression often result from unsatisfactory relationships with the
space in which the subject is functioning (Proshansky, 1970; Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1978; Esser, 1971). Human beings are adaptable, but need a
sense of awareness concerning when adaptation is acceptable and when
it causes limitations.
Architecture, stated Zeisel (1975), has a direct relationship
with man's basic biological, physical, psychological and social needs.
Buildings communicate in many ways. They communicate to the public
the image of their owners; to the people who work within, a sense of
their worth and capabilities (Hall, 1966). Environments, where making
sense is difficult, create a psychological overload (Kaplan & Kaplan,
1978). Drew (1971) stated that physical environments could be managed
to achieve obvious physical or behavioral results, and it is necessary
for us to become aware of this. Canter (1974) reflected Skinner's
operant conditioning theories when he stated that behavior in
buildings will occur in relation to any given stimulus and buildings
should provide reinforcing conditions. He further stated that people
often do not do what they are expected to do because of habits or
attitudes not considered by the architect.
Bennet (1977) listed several things as necessary considerations
in design: anthropometry, luminous environment, thermal control,
sound environment and color. He said that human objectives of design,
however, are often given priority in this order - health and safety,
9
performance, comfort and aesthetic pleasantness. These are all
necessary considerations, one being as important as any other.
Dreyfuss Associates (Diffreint, Lilley, & Bardagjy, 1974) have
addressed the anthropometrical measurements for various ages and
physical positions, thus making this information readily available.
Light is a powerful tool which can create spaces and maximize
visibility for various tasks. It needs to originate from various
sources and in varied amounts. The provision of multi-controls is
desirable, for functional-goals, energy conservation and aesthetics
(Bennet, 1977; Harmon, 1945). Thermal comfort varies with activity;
humidity and acclimatization also influence comfort perceptions.
Extreme temperatures can cause emotional reactions, reduce
performance, and present health problems (Bennet, 1977).
The sound environment should be designed to enable us to hear
desired sounds and avoid unwanted ones. Both sound reflective and
sound absorptive materials should be used (Bennet, 1977). Sound
barriers and diffusers are also needed (Knudson & Harris, 1950).
Noise, in excess, can produce tension and disrupt work.
Color beliefs are often confused with facts. Color, an important
experience in life, can provide release, excitement, and pleasure;
personality is very involved (Bennet, 1977; Birren, 1969). Color is
basic, not a frill. Primary colors have universal appeal and can be
used pure or as tints and shades. Colors are often called warm -
reds, yellows, oranges - and cool - blues, greens. Birren (1969)
suggested the use of warm colors for features, cool for foil, pure in
small amounts in centralized areas and modified as backgrounds.
Architects must know all functions of an area and surrounding areas
within and without the facility (Knudsen & Harris, 1950).
Built Environment - School
Although the overall contemporary learning environment has been
improved with climate control, color coordination, good traffic flow
and flexible spaces, the most critical space, the classroom, has seen
little significant improvement (Lilley, 1978). Individual learning
spaces have been grossly neglected. "Traditionally, education and
architecture have not been concerned with the effects of an active (as
opposed to passive) setting on the behavior and learning of children.
Both parties have articulated square footage needs per pupil, number
of "teaching stations," "number of seats" and "maintenance functions"
(Taylor, 1978, p. 5). Lilley (1978) saw as the main goal of a school
building the provision of the best possible learning environment; but
what is best?
If the socialization of the child brings with it

the internalization of significant others, the
normative attitudes of the groups he belongs to,
the roles he has to play, and the unique
experiences he has, then it undoubtedly also
brings the internalization of those places that
define and structure these people, their
activities, and his relationships with them. His
satisfactions, frustrations, growth and competence
feelings must be as much rooted in his
interactions with physical settings as with the
individuals who care for him in these settings.
(Proshansky, 1974, p. 551)
Lilley (1978) said that learning space should do more than allow
educational activities, it should cause them. Moos (1976) cited three
environmental aspects which affect behavior - distance, space and
51
amenities and reflected that the overall design concept of
school/classroom affects interactions and attitudes. The learner, his
inner self and his physical environment present a complex set of
relationships with which to work (School Environment Research, 1965;
Moos, 1976; McQuade, 1959; Michelson, Levine, & Spina, 1979).
The emphasis in much of early education is now on learning rather
than teaching, which calls for specialized structures and designs
developed to meet learning needs (School Environment Research, 1965).
Students and teachers must become involved in the problem solving
venture. They often are not able to impact their situations without
help, due to lack of training in using an environment effectively
(Durlak, 1974). "Highly skilled teachers and well designed buildings
are both important" (Durlak, 1974, p. 164). Awareness of the
importance of the physical environment in education exists, and the
classroom is viewed as the most immediate problem (Sommer, 1969): ".
. . the three-dimensional form of the schools' interior spaces is not
sensitively designed for the activities they will contain" (Lilley,
1978, p. 4). If creative design is not applied to learning areas, and
it is not, ordinarily, then the school building will fail to
accomplish its main goal - to provide the best possible learning
environment (Lilley, 1978).
Bertoldi (Taylor, 1978) said that educators and architects are
very alike in their observations and criteria for educational
facilities. They observed classrooms as being inflexible, lacking
color, using only a small portion of the total volume of the room and
scaling most things for adults, rather than children. They
recommended analysis of teacher/child activities and needs and
52
involvement of community, educators, architects and other specialists
in planning and building. These observations and recommendations
reflect much of the research found (McQuade, 1959; Rowland, 1965;
Musgrove, 1978; David, 1974; Waechter, 1951; DeJong, 1980; Brubeck &
Vanston, 1974; Fawcett, 1976).
In speaking to specific details of design, McQuade (1959)
emphasized that teachers and children need a variety of readily
accessible places to store a multitude of things, both personal and
for teaching/learning use and both for immediate use and long time
holding. This need was substantiated by others (Nellist, 1970; Gump &
Good, 1976; Passantino, 1978). Finishes should be easily
cleaned/renewed, withstand hard wear, appear warm and welcoming, offer
a variety of textures (Nellist, 1970; McQuade, 1959; Brubeck &
Vanston, 1974). Color should be used to give direction, emphasize,
soothe, cheer or stimulate and teach (Nellist, 1970; Waechter, 1951;
Osmon, 1971). Toilet facilities should be immediately adjacent to the
learning area (Nellist, 1970; Brubeck & Vanston, 1974). Planning is
necessary for both inside and outside learning areas (McQuade, 1959;
Waechter, 1951; Passantino, 1978).
We must use the physical dimensions of the human form in design
of space and selection and placement of furnishings and equipment
(Looker, 1960; Brubeck & Vanston, 1974). Accessibility of areas;
locations of doors and their hardware; light control location;
thresholds; toilet fittings; water facilities - all need to be
carefully evaluated for use by possible occupants (Nellist, 1970;
Brubeck & Vanston, 1974).
53
Acoustical materials must be used to create optimum hearing and
working conditions (Looker, 1960; Deutsch, N.D.). Light can enhance,
aid, deter and frustrate. It needs careful evaluation and the ability
to be controlled separately in areas. It needs to be available from
both natural and mechanical sources (Osmon, 1971; Passantino; 1978).
Passantino (1978) said it was "most important that the building
environment provide maximum opportunity for the desired learning
activities" and that we must remember that the small child intakes
knowledge by way of his visual, auditory and tactile senses (p. 5).
Programming
Passantino (1978) emphasized "the all-important building spaces
programming and conceptual analysis" as the first step in planning
educational facilities (p. 4). Communication between users,
purchasers and designer is often a problem (Sommer, 1969). Sanoff
(1977) wrote that we should proceed on the assumption that expertise
lies not only in the designer, but rather in everyone who will be
affected, each contributing from his own knowledge. Pena, Caudill,
and Focke (1977) said that "Good buildings don’t just happen. They
are planned to look good and perform well, and come about when good
architects and good clients join in thoughtful, cooperative effort.
Programming the requirements of a proposed building is the architect's
first task, often the most important" (p. 12). Increased
participation of community and education leaders, teachers and other
users leads to increased efficiency. This philosophy of
user/client/community/ designer participation is adherred to by many
54
(Passantino, 1978; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1978; Pena, Caudill, & Focke,
1977; Taylor, 1978; McClurkin, 1964; Palmer, 1981).
Organized architectural programming has been in use for
approximately 25 years and is characterized by a variety of techniques
or methods, based on various relationships between programming and
design (Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977). In 1969 the American Institute
of Architects addressed this trend with the publication of a booklet
entitled Emerging Techniques 2: Architectural Programming by Benjamin
H. Evans, AIA and C. Herbert Wheeler Jr., FAIA. In the same year a
treatise on architectural programming, Problem Seeking by Wm. Pena &
John Focke, was published (Palmer, 1981).
In the preface to his book on facility programming, Palmer (1981)
wrote: "Programming has emerged as a systemized process for
investigating and analyzing the design requirements of a facility" (p.
vi). Its objective is information. It is a decision-making tool to
enable the designer and client to obtain their goal of a functional,
durable, appealing and economical facility. Pena, Caudill, and Focke
(1977) described programming as an organized collection of specific
information which includes all of the human, physical and external
factors concerning the client's needs or requirements. It establishes
the considerations, the limits and possibilities of the design itself.
Sanoff (1977) said its results ultimately effect some type of change
in the physical environment either as an addition, a remodeling of
existing spaces, or a new physical facility. It is the first sequence
of phases when planning the use of either interior or exterior space.
Palmer (1981) described programming as "a lens that focuses and
55
filters information into a clear, words-and-numbers picture of what is
needed for design" (p. 16),
Clients are interested in data which will help them to make
decisions; costs of design, construction, operation and maintenance;
flexibility for future use; time until completion and occupancy. The
designer is interested in these plus such other things as might affect
the final facility; site and facility restrictions; functions and
functional relationships; types and amounts of spaces to satisfy user
needs; traffic (circulation) patterns within and without; economy of
form and space. Through a disciplined methodology of data collection,
analysis, organization, communications and evaluation," these concerns
can be addressed (Palmer, 1981, p. 1).
Palmer (1981) further stated that "The nature of the programming
process is investigative, analytical and systematic" (p. 10). It is a
dynamic, interactive, decision-making process (Palmer, 1981). It
begins with the identification of client/user goals (Sanoff, 1977;
Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977; Palmer, 1981). In education, this
should include the educational program and learning activities which
occur to support it. Consideration of the curriculum with an in-depth
look at goals and objectives is essential when programming
(Proshansky, 1970; Taylor, 1978). User behavior should be a guiding
principle (Sommer, 1969; Taylor, 1978) and user's physical
requirements should be satisfied with convenience, independence,
safety and dignity (Zeisel, 1975). Osmon (1971) said that for any
environment to be optimal, it must provide conditions which allow its
users to reach their full potential. He listed occupant needs in
56
three categories: psychological, biological and social.
Castaldi (1977) said that data collected is the link between the
educational program and the school facilities. Therefore, it should
be clear, concise, and detailed (Bennet, 1977). Thus data collection
is the next step in the programming process. Data collection, or
information retrieval, can occur in several ways and the primary
source is the client - owner, user and related publics.
Background data research, "a preliminary investigation of project
needs, relevant issues and existing information" should be done
initially in order to obtain and organize existing data and other
information and determine needs and sources (Palmer, 1981, p. 53).
Two main sources for this are the client and relevant literature in
the field. Subjects supply data from their personal knowledge,
experience and perception. Surveys are used to obtain opinions and
measure attitudes; questionnaires and interviews are used to obtain
evaluative and descriptive information; data logs and standardized
forms to document descriptive, factual information (Palmer, 1981;
Sanoff, 1977).
The value of group efforts to produce data and make decisions
should not be overlooked. These group sessions must be well organized
and controlled, but when this is so, the possibilities for obtaining
new ideas, alternative choices and saving time are great. As
participants, the clients can give pertinent, accurate information,
better understand reasons for decisions, and more easily relate to the
final design (Palmer, 1981; Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977; Sanoff,
1977).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
57
Sanoff (1977) discussed five group strategies: role playing,
brainstorming, synetics, buzz sessions and discussion groups. Palmer
(1981) discussed the first four, added gaming and then listed group
planning, rather than group discussion, under which he placed three
approaches - Marathons, "Squatters" and Charettes - that require more
or less uninterrupted concentration on specific issues with the goal
of reaching a final conclusion, statement or decision. They are
generally intense sessions which last for a specific (often rather
lengthy) time. He also listed two variations, aimed at broad
participation and continuous, prolonged participation and
de-emphasizing intense concentration — Bridge and Workshop.
Sanoff (1977) told us that "Since the participation of citizens
suggests involvement of nondesign groups, it is important that
participants are contributing from their expertise and the designer
not abrogate his responsibility" (p. 168). Team effort requires
communication and it is important that all data are documented,
organized and then displayed for discussion, evaluation and concensus
(Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977). A mass of data is often collected and
must be reduced to manageable, meaningful material.
Analysis of data involves sorting, comparing, weighing,
screening, developing preliminary conclusions, testing and verifying
them; information is then organized to show relationships, patterns,
groupings, priorities, requirements, function; it is ranked,
diagramed, composed. Finally, analysis involves looking at the part
in relation to the whole (Palmer, 1981). Then comes organization for
communication and further action. Relationship diagrams and charts
can be constructed to display information. Analysis cards can be
written, each card conveying a single thought, and these displayed.
Chalkboards and display-sized worksheets can be used for display of
ideas while working with a group. Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS) of
Houston has perfected the "brown sheet" method and uses it primarily
for space programming (Palmer, 1981; Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977).
Information can be categorized into three factors: (1) human
- objectives, numbers, characteristics, activites, perceptions,
comfort; (2) physical - types of space, space functions, adjacency,
circulation, equipment/furnishings, aesthetics, internal and external
environments, durable life of facility; (3) external - codes,
standards and regulations, development and construction time, costs,
climate, topography, energy resources, future projections (Palmer,
1981). "The product of programming is the statement of the problem"
(Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977, p. 22). This is one of the most
important documents in the process (Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977).
Sanoff (1977) stated that there are many ways of relating the
final information for a design program, but all must keep, as central
to their purpose, information about the user. The definition of the
problem to be solved needs to be made in direct, clearly worded,
statements which use constraints, facts, limits and boundaries, and
define relationships of user to facility (Sanoff, 1977; Pena, Caudill,
& Focke 1977; Palmer, 1981). They should be thought of as guidelines
and thus should be specific and in language the designer will
understand. They should identify a condition that leads to a design
directive (Pena, Caudill, & Focke 1977). These statements bear
59
several names, i.e., performance descriptions (Sanoff, 1977), problem
statements (Pena, 1977).
The architect can then develop a number of concepts that fit and
thus offer the educator alternatives. He can use his creative skills
to provide ingenious use of shape, color, texture, and materials as
both aesthetic supports and teaching aids. He can also offer an
efficient, functional, economical and unique use of space based on
identified needs and constraints (Castaldi, 1977).
Dober (Sanoff, 1977) stated that he held a ". . . strongly felt
conviction that programming is a necessary activity in any design
process that claims to be responsive to user needs" (p. vii, editor's
forward), and Pena, Caudill, and Focke (1977) declared architectural
practice to be an art and a science. As artists, architects are
creative designers; as scientists, they are creative pursuers of
knowledge, and programming is the best systematic approach for
information.
60
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to construct a document for use by
local planning committees as a guide when planning kindergarten
facilities. It is an aid for gathering information, defining local
needs and objectives, making informed decisions and ultimately writing
a comprehensive program for kindergarten facilities unique to each
situation.
Organization
This study was organized into six sequential phases. Phase one
consisted of two activities: (1) a review of the literature in the
field of Education concerning growth and development philosophy,
learning theories, characteristics of the child in kindergarten,
learning centers and educators' approach to learning facilities; (2) a
review of literature in the field of Architecture concerning the
philosophy of space and man and his physical environment, the
architects' view of learning environments and programming.
Phase two dealt with two activities: (1) the construction of the
document utilizing information from the literature review; (2) the
construction of the questionnaire to be used for verifying its
useability: clarity of wording and format and information
correctness.
Phase three dealt with the pilot testing of the document and the
questionnaire with groups whose membership contained persons
comparable to those of the sample population. The selection of a
representative sample of population and geographic settings for field
testing was accomplished in phase four.
Phase five included the mailing of the document to selected
respondents and a follow-up on-site visit for a personal interview and
review of the document. Phase six involved the analysis of data and
finalization of the document.
Document Development
The narrative form was decided upon as the most suitable method
for the presentation of the programming materials to the targeted
audience. The printed form is relatively inexpensive, ideas can be
carefully selected and phrased in the language of the target audience
and it is a permanent reference for the users. The 8^" x 11" size was
chosen as being most similar to the bulk of materials found in the
bookshelves of potential users and therefore readily stored. The
spiral binding was chosen to enable the document to be opened and used
with ease.
The first step in the development of the document was to define
the potential users, the level of technicality the document needed and
its classification as a working document.
The next step in the development of the document was to compose a
detailed outline of the concepts and information to be communicated to
the audience as indicated by review of the literature. When writing
the document, it was necessary to refine statements and define
terminology so that information would be understandable and meaningful
62
to the educator, architect and lay user.
The basic rules of usage and style as outlined by Palmer (1981)
in The Architect’s Guide to Facility Programming were followed. They
include
Follow accepted rules of grammar.
Use the active voice and definite, specific

concrete language.
Write in a way that comes naturally, avoiding

stilted phrasing.
Omit needless words.
Revise and rewrite.
Use orthodox spelling.
Try to use short, uncomplicated sentences.
Avoid fancy words and technical jargon; define

words unusual to the reader at the first
reference.
Do not take short cuts at the cost of clarity.
The first draft of the document was reviewed by the member of the
committee representing the College of Architecture. Suggestions were
made concerning semantics and format and the addition of graphics.
The document was revised, graphics designed and incorporated and a
preliminary copy printed for pilot testing.
Pilot testing was done in two graduate classes in the Education
Curriculum and Instruction Department, and with a professor from the
College of Architecture. The graduate classes were carefully selected
for membership which included similar positions to those who would be
field participants, i.e., superintendents, principals, teachers,
63
curriculum directors, parents. The professor was chosen because of
his speciality - programming. Excellent comments were received, and
wording and format changes were made in the document. At the
suggestion of the programming professor, a section of questions was
added to the document.
Information from Problem Solving, (Pena, Caudill, & Focke, 1977)
was directly quoted. Permission was requested, and received, to
incorporate this information (Appendix E).
Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire was written to obtain two types of information:
(1) demographic data concerning the respondents and (2) response to
the clarity and completeness of the information in the document.
It was designed to be used by the interviewer in a one-to-one
situation with the participant responding to each question on a one to
five scale, one being least and five being greatest, and the
interviewer recording each response on the form. Verbal comments made
by the participant were to be recorded at the time made. Written
comments, made on the document, were to be recorded by the interviewer
on the respondent's questionnaire form immediately following the
interview.
The questionnaire was evaluated by the pilot group as to clarity
and useability. The designer evaluated its ability to obtain the
information needed. A format error was changed so that the sequence
matched that in the document and a question added for the section
"Questions" which had been added to the document. The final
64
questionnaire (Appendix G) was then typed and duplicated.
Sample
The participants for the field study were drawn from two sources:
(1) local school districts in Texas and (2) practicing architects
whose expertise included school facility planning.
The local districts were two of four districts involved in K-12
Community Education pilot projects through a grant from the Texas
Education Agency under the direction of Dr. Douglas A. Godwin of Texas
A&M University. They had demonstrated, by application for involvement
in the above mentioned study and active participation as selected
sites, an interest in the improvement of their local educational
system. These are growing districts which have built school
facilities in the recent past and will be further involved in building
in the near future. Two of the districts were located in southeast
Texas and two in north central Texas. One district from each area was
initially contacted and because sufficient respondents were obtained,
the other two districts were not sampled.
The architects are practicing architects who are members of the
Texas Society of Architects and serve on their Architecture for
Education Committee. Their firms are located in Austin and Houston.
A major portion of their work is with design of public schools.
Based on the literature review, these specific participants were
chosen as follows:
(1) The local pilot project directors were

contacted by telephone for a listing of names and
addresses of people within their district who fit
65
the following descriptions:
Board of Education member

Superintendent of Schools
Elementary Coordinator
(or equivalent)
Principal of school housing kindergarten
Kindergarten teacher
Parent of child in kindergarten
They were asked to list alternates, where

possible.
(2) The Texas Society of Architects office in

Austin was contacted by telephone for the name and
address of the chairman of the Architecture for
Education Committee. He was contacted (Appendix
A) and asked to supply three names of persons on
his committee who might be willing to review the
document.
Letters (Appendices B and C) were then sent to prospective
participants with an enclosed postal card (Appendix D) to indicate
their willingness to participate. Two alternate names from the school
districts were used. All other initial contacts indicated a
willingness to assist.
The next step involved mailing copies of the document, An
Approach to Programming for Kindergarten Facilities, an accompanying
cover letter (Appendix F) and a pen for marking to each of the
participants. Local directors were very helpful in setting interview
times when a date was selected. The architects were contacted by
telephone to set their interview dates and times.
Administration
On-site personal interviews were then conducted with each of the
participants. Questions were orally stated and replies marked on the
66
form by the interviewer. Participants rated each section on a 1-5
scale.
Most participants chose to discuss the comments they had noted in
the document rather than having the document taken and these comments
recorded after the interview. The documents were reviewed, however,
for comments noted which might not have been discussed. Documents
were then returned to the persons interviewed for their future
reference.
Presentation of Data
Upon completion of all interviews the information was recorded,
analyzed and reported. Personal information is displayed in Tables I
and II along with recorded comments. Data resulting from questions on
the document's clarity and completeness are reported by number and
percentages in Tables III through X with related comments accompanying
each table. Results of the final questions concerning use of the
document are reported by number and percentages of Yes - No responses
with comments recorded for each question.
Finalization of Document
Several minor adjustments to the document were made - word
substitution, sequencing format switch, expansion of Questions
section, addition of example for clarity, addition of bibliography -
and a final copy of the document, An Approach to Programming for
Kindergarten Facilities was printed for submission to the doctoral
committee (Appendix H).
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to construct a document which could
be utilized as a working resource by local planning groups to aid them
in writing their own programming documents for kindergarten facilities
which support specific goals and needs of their school districts and
communities (Appendix H).
The questionnaire utilized in this study was administered to
determine the clarity, completeness and potential useability of the
document in the field. It sought information in the following three
areas:
(1) Personal information concerning the participants.
(2) The clarity and completeness of each of the
sections of the document.
(3) The organization and potential usefulness of the
document as a tool.
All participants in this study received a copy of the document at
least one week prior to their personal interview. They were requested
to react by circling words or phrases they did not understand (felt
wereunclear), underlining information they felt was inaccurate and
noting in the margin additional information they felt should be
included. They were cautioned that their response was not to evaluate
the philosophy of learning center instruction or the presence of
centers in kindergarten. Each participant was then personally
interviewed to illicit verbal and written reactions to the document.
68
Questionnaire items which received positive response (ratings of 4 or
5) from at least 80% of the panel members were considered acceptable
and in need of no revision. Negative responses (ratings of 1 or 2)
totaling 20% or more on any item would have indicated needed revision
to that corresponding portion of the programming document. Revisions
would then have been made based on reviewers' comments and the
finalized document written. All items received an 80% or greater
acceptance rating.
The document was divided into four segments for ease of review:
(1) Introductory Segment - Introduction, Philosophy,
How to Make This Programming Document Yours,
Questions
(2) Information Segment - Goals, Facts, Concepts, Needs
(3) Problem Statement Segment - Problem Statements for
the Total Facility and Problem Statements for the
nine Centers
(4) Final Segment - Materials and Equipment, Addi
tional Information.
Personal Information
Questions 1-9 dealt with personal information. Responses to
questions 1-6 are displayed in Table I. Questions 7-8 were open-ended
questions, required a written comment and appear in related text.
Question 9 is displayed in table format on p. 73.
There were 10 participants who had been involved at some time in
planning learning facilities. Of these, two were professional
59
Architect B x x x x
Architect A
Parent B
Parent A <
•"S.
z
Teacher B
of Interviewees
Teacher A
Principal B
Principal A
Information
Curri. Dir. B
Curri. Dir. A
Personal
Supt. B
and
Supt. A
Demographic
Board Member B <

z
Board Member A x x x x
w CO
school
o 00 ■3
c. 0)
0)
2
CO e
01 CO 0] 01 0] -H
*0
G
tn u u u oj
Q)Oo>Qa Qo Qoi cO, a u o u fi. -U
elementary
CO ix
u
fi>x x x x o fc*
c hM 03 CO
0 CO
o
ih u a 00 *H u
C 3 O O .ff I* c JJ o
•h m © *n m o e v u •H •H *3
-H — H — * *H -H U- CD JS JZ 0} c 03 fmi C
0) I I I > U Q) 4J co a o u o o c G 0 •H •H 1
EOvO- HO.QE-0 3
a >s e
a. x
3
c CO X U
CO
CO ft- b.
70
designers. Five had been involved with remodeling existing
facilities. The remaining five had been involved with planning for
new facilities.
The designers stated the nature of their school work as
60-70% of my work is public school building.
95% of our work is schools, most public; some

private and university.
Question 7 was "What method was used in planning?" Ten responses
were given concerning planning:
It was informal. We worked with the contractor,

giving him information and used his input plus
those of the engineer on the school board.
We gave the contractor some information and at the

preliminary drawing stage had input from teachers,
board, and superintendent.
I've been involved in two. In the first,

administration made some decisions and then the
architect made preliminary sketches. The users
were involved at the time of the first blueprints.
In the other situation, the administrators and
teachers met and made suggestions. The results
were given to the architect for preliminary
drawings. Then the architects met with each
individual department for input. Decisions were
made from advice offered.
Administration did most of the planning. I had

never taught kindergarten and didn't know anything
about what was needed.
Programming. We do a lot of surveys. This tells

us and the district a lot about their situation.
We involve their local planning groups. The local
groups have the final say; they make the final
decisions.
We wrote a 5 year plan. Then we wrote goals and

needs.
An architect was hired and committees formed from
each area of the school. The architect planners
met with the committees and a document was
written. The work didn’t follow the plan, though.
Cuts were made because of money, but deletions
were not agreed on! The building, as a result,
was not good in terms of educational needs.
The school district has an on-going relationship

with an architectural firm. They formed
committees within the district. They met,
exchanged ideas and critiqued; preliminary plans
were drawn and critiqued. Finally built.
We visited sites. We had large and small group

planning. Any input was helpful. The final
decisions were made by the small group.
Programming. We consider the program in two

parts. The client gives us the educational
program - philosophy, how they teach (very
important), how people act in spaces (also very
important), numbers - total population of building
and population of individual areas, constraints -
money and other, expectancies and relationships.
We write a building program - it deals with
floors, walls, spaces, etc. We give this to them
to review. If it is ok we proceed, if "No," we
revise and they review again, then we begin the
schematic work - Brown sheets - and add students.
Then come the games! We have sessions with
distinct groups (peer level) as people are less
constrained to respond when their superiors, boss,
elders etc. aren't present. All groups have their
own perspective. Students usually see the
buildings and the ways they are used more clearly
than any others. We do quick schematic drawings
of ideas and when a group finalizes something, we
take Polaroids of those ideas. Then we put all
these pictures together and study them. We
finally come up with a plan and finally a
facility.
Question 8 was "Tell me your overall feelings about this
experience." Ten responses to the request follow:
They were good. This worked well.
72
The second experience was much better; there was

more involvement of the users.
I was ready for help.
We do a lot of schools. We work withtheirpeople

and help them get what best suits their needs.
Good. This was a goodway to go.
I felt good about this experience. There was a

receptive feeling between the architects and
school people. The schools met the needs of the
users and everyone is still pleased.
Initially I felt good, but later quite frustrated.
Good.
Challenging. Working with groups can sometimes

get a little frustrating when you need detailed
information and get very little, and all general.
But usually it is very interesting working with
them, especially the students. And then getting
buildings which support what goes on there. . .
Question 9 was "Suppose your district appointed you, tomorrow, to
a committee for planning kindergarten facilities. Tell me what
contributions you see yourself making." Responses to this question
appear in Table II.
Document Clarity and Completeness
Questions 10 through 51 dealt with the questions of clarity and
completeness of the programming document. Each of the individual
sections within the document had one question (even-numbered) related
to clarity and one question (odd-numbered) related to completeness.
Clarity, all even-numbered questions, was responded to by the
participants on a scale of 1 to 5 (not clear to very clear).
TABLE II
Perceived Contributions as a Planning Committee Member
tn o
Architect
c c i
Hf (p e
S
ai
.
X)
ft
►1 0*
O n
jr
n
p
H* A pt
if O
H* *
Coordinate planning
Leadership, orchestrate behind the scene 2
Facilitate communications 2
Determine needs/gather information 2
Consolidation of ideas 1
Provide facts - district-wide 2
Provide curriculum information
Aid in selection of a representative committee
Evaluate for match - facility/intended use
Provide facts - children's needs, numbers, schedules, space needs,

use of equipment and materials/activities, transportation
Question
Look at facility from a child's point of view
Not sure, but . . .
Seek ideas, visit other districts
Financial - evaluate, plan
-i
74
Completeness, all odd-numbered questions, was responded to by the
participants on a scale of 1 to 5 (not complete to very complete).
The acceptance level for questions 10-51, concerning clarity and
completeness, was set at a positive response level of 80% or greater.
The numbers on the rating scale were listed as follow:
1-2 not acceptable (negative)
3 neutral
4-5 acceptable (positive)
Percentage was obtained by adding the number of responses in the
acceptable range (4, 5) and dividing that number by the total number
of responses (14) for that question.
Introductory Segment
Tables III and IV reportthe findings concerning clarity and
completeness of the Introductory Segment of the document and appear on
the next pages. Comments related to the Introductory Segment appear
following.
Introduction. Four respondents made no comments concerning
this section of the document. Five respondents stated that it was
both very clear and complete.
There were three respondents who made comments concerning
clarity:
You need to tell more about what this (document)

is for.
State what you want to do; you jump from the

specific to the general to the specific.
75
TABLE I I I
Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the Clarity of the

Introductory Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings
Section Question Not Very Percentage

Number Clear Clear of
1 2 3 4 5 Clarity
Introduction 10 0 0 0 5 9 100%
Philosophy 12 0 0 0 2 12 100
How to Make
This. . .Yours 14 0 0 1 1 12 93
Questions 16 0 0 0 1 13 100
Terms to
Communicate 18 0 0 0 4 10 100
Total for Segment 0 0 1 13 56 99
All sections were rated at an 80% or greater level of positive

response; therefore, all sections were accepted.
76
TABLE IV
Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the Completeness of the

Introductory Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 Completeness
Introduction 11 . 0 1 1 3 9 86%
Philosophy 13 0 0 0 2 12 100
How to Make
This. . .Yours 15 0 0 1 2 11 93
Questions 17 0 0 0 2 12 100
Terms to
Communicate 19 0 0 0 3 11 100

77
You should state clearly that not just one person

for each group is on a planning team. Several
from each group usually work.
One individual commented concerning completeness:
What about the kids? We find students often know

much more about what is actuallyoccurring in
their buildings than all others.
Philosophy— Comments. Six respondents made no comments
concerning this section of the document. Four respondents made
positive statements concerning its clarity and completeness.
One individual made a suggestion for a format change: "This
group composition is also listed in Introduction and might go there
better."
How to Make This Document Yours— Comments. Four respondents
made no comments concerning this section of the document. One
individual made a positive statement concerning its completeness.
Two respondents made positive statements concerning its clarity
and completeness.
One individual was uncertain about this segment but could offer
no further comment: "I don't know." Three respondents cited the
part on using it as a guide as "good."
There were three changes for clarity suggested: Two respondents
suggested the addition of an example showing how the document might be
changed to meet local needs. One person suggested expansion of this
segment but offered no ideas for doing so.
78
Questions— Comments. Six respondents made no comments
concerning this section of the document. Three respondents made
positive comments stating the potential helpfulness of this section.
Five respondents suggested relocation of this segment: Four
suggested placement at the end of the document. One suggested
placement at the end or after How to Make This Document Yours.
There were two suggestions concerning additional questions:
What about dual heat/cool sources?
You might include some lighting questions.
Some additional questions might be added: new

building or remodeling? attached? flooring?
walls? spaces? size? money? relationships?
activities? personnel? length of use? ambience?
ceiling?
Terms to Communicate— Comments. There were no participants who
refrained from commenting about this segment of the document. Ten
responses stated the helpfulness and comprehensiveness of this
section.
Six comments concerned clarity:
Building efficiency is:

useable space = building efficiency
total space
(your definition on p. 61 is better).
Add "useable space" - total space less corridors,

walls, mechanical, custodial, stairs, elevators,
etc.
The definition of need is a little wordy.
Here you are speaking of education and here of a

facility. You should speak of facility
79
throughout.
Perhaps an example under the Problem Statement

definition would help to clarify it some more.
Perhaps this section could go prior to How To Make

This Document Yours.
There was one comment concerning completeness:
Building Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness are

extraneous to this document.
Information Segment
The Information segment of the programming document includes the
sections entitled Goals, Facts, Concepts and Needs. Tables V and VI
report the clarity and completeness ratings for this segment and
appear on the following pages.
Comments made by respondents related to the Information segment
(Goals, Facts, Concepts and Needs) are as follow: Three comments to
this segment as a whole stated that the sections were "very good."
Four respondents stated that there seemed to be repetition between the
sections. One person commented: "It was redundant, but of
necessity."
Goals— Comments. Six respondents made no comment concerning
this section of the document. Three statements affirmed the clarity
and completeness of the information. Four individuals suggested
format changes to enhance clarity: two suggested a heading for the
description of the five-year-old and two suggested the movement of the
Occupation Date that "Perhaps under Additional Concerns - put this and
80
TABLE V
Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the Clarity of the

Information Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

Goals 20 0 0 0 5 9 100%
Facts 22 0 0 1 2 11 93
Concepts 24 0 0 1 2 11 93
Needs 26 0 0 1 1 12 93

31
TABLE V I

Information Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

Goals 21 0 0 0 4 10 100%
Facts 23 0 0 1 2 11 93
Concepts 25 0 0 1 1 12 93
Needs 27 0 0 0 1 13 100

32
full Day." Two comments related to wording for clarity. One referred
to numbers, i.e., 2-8 or 20-25 with the comment, "Be specific as to
basis of 'group,' definition." Another suggested that the document
should "Speak to kindergarten facility, not program." One noted
comment stated: "The energy statement and occupation date are
extraneous material."
Facts— Comments. Five respondents made no comment concerning
this section of the document. There were six comments that this
section was "very good." Five individuals made specific comments
concerning the cover page - children and their measurements - as
follow: Three stated that this information would be good to have.
One noted "Verrry Good!" and orally "This is good to have." One
stated "I don't understand this."
Two respondents spoke to clarity:
The Characteristics of a five-year-old might

better say "many" or "most" or "General
Characteristics."
Maybe you should use another word for each of

these - "egocentric," "acquiescent," "illiterate."
You should say Characteristics of a "Good"

Kindergarten Teacher.
Avoid the word "adequate." Other no-nos are some,

enough, wide, low, long, high, a few, eye-level,
good, lots of, easy, convenient, sufficient,
acceptable!"
Let the facts relate to building needs. Perhaps

take some to Goals. Try breaking up some.
Three respondents spoke to completeness:
33
Perhaps you could put a * at the end of the

Intellectual part with the note saying - * Must be
aware of local situations.
Inclusion of the storage considerations is very

good.
This (p. 18) is extraneous material, except for

community description, functional support and
neighborhood; pp. 15-17 are fine.
The inclusion of site description is good.
One individual spoke to format:
You have a strong support for storage; use it as a

lead-in.
Concepts— Comments. Three respondents made no comment
concerning this section of the document. There were three comments
that the statements were good and clearly stated. Two comments
related to format: "Perhaps these could be reformatted and used with
Needs or Facts" and "Perhaps hold this and use as part of introductory
statements to centers." One statement pointed out a paragraph
duplication (bottom of 20 and top of 21). There was one notated
question: "What do you mean by visual interaction?" One notation
said "Poor content."
Needs— Comments. Five respondents made no comment concerning
this section of the document. There were four responses that the
Needs were very clear and complete.
One person commented concerning completeness: "The last six
needs listed are extraneous material."
Two individuals commented on format saying, "This is well pre
sented" and "Needs directly relate to the building. See concepts
also."
Problem Statements Segment
Included in this segment are problem statements related to the
total facility and to each of the nine learning centers. Tables VII
and VIII report the ratings concerning clarity and completeness of the
Problem Statements Segment of the document and appear on the following
pages.
Two comments concerned completeness: "Inclusion of the energy
efficient statement is good" and "Discussion of electric supply is
extraneous to the document."
Twelve comments concerned the Problem Statements segment as a
whole - total facility and Learning Centers. These were affirmative
as to the clarity and completeness of this segment.
Total Facility— Comments. Every respondent commented on this
section of the document. There were two comments which said the
statements were very clear and complete.
There were two comments related to clarity:
See p. 28 - "large group activities" - doing

what?; "storage solutions" of what?; "teaching
machines" - which?; 2nd and last statement need
coordinating, p. 29 - Where should adult restroom
facilities be located? p. 30 - "Consideration"
might not be the word you want.
When discussing groups, specify who and how many.
85
TABLE V I I
Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the Clarity of the Problem

Statements Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 Clarity
Total
Facility 28 0 0 0 3 11 100%
Centers;
Art 30 0 0 0 2 12 100
Blocks 32 0 0 0 2 12 100
Home 34 0 0 0 2 12 100
Library 36 0 0 0 1 13 100
Manipulative 38 0 0 0 2 12 100
Music 40 0 0 0 2 12 100
Outside 42 0 0 0 2 12 100
Science 44 0 0 0 1 13 100
Woodworking 46 0 0 0 2 12 100
All sections were rated at a 100% level of positive response;

therefore, all sections were accepted.
86
TABLE V I I I

Problem Statements Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

Total
Facility 29 0 0 0 4 10 100%
Centers:
Art 31 0 0 0 2 12 100
Blocks 33 0 0 0 1 13 100
Home 35 0 0 0 2 12 100
Library 37 0 0 0 2 12 100
Manipulatives 39 0 0 0 2 12 100
Music 41 0 0 0 2 12 100
Outside 43 0 0 0 2 12 100
Science 45 0 0 0 1 13 100
Woodworking 47 0 0 0 2 12 100

87
Learning Centers— Comments. Every respondent commented on this
section of the programming document. There were two who declared the
section to be very comprehensive and useful. One comment concerned
clarity: "You need to identify the people the conference spaces are
for."
(1) Art— Comments There were twelve respondents who did not
make specific comments regarding this section. Two individuals
suggested the inclusion of page numbers referencing the center
supplies found in the section Materials and Equipment. (This referred
to all centers).
(2) Blocks— Comment One comment related to completeness:
"These are learning aids; not facility related."
(3) Manipulatives— Comment One comment related to clarity:
"Should you maybe define 'manipulative?"'
(4) Science— Comment One comment related to potential
usefulness: "I like this area. It's very good. You have a lot
here."
(5) Home, Library, Music, Outside, Woodworking No specific
comments were made.
Learning Center Relationships Graph— Comments. Five
respondents did not comment on this graph. There was one notated
comment stating it was "Very Good!" There were six comments it was
88
not clear or they did not understand it. Two individuals requested an
example of how to actually use this graph.
Final Segment
The final segment of the programming document includes a section
on Materials and Equipment for each of the nine learning centers as
well as for Indoor Large Motor Development and the Teacher Work Area.
Also included in this segment is a section on additional information
which might be useful relating to building efficiency, cost estimate
analysis, kindergarten schedules, area relationships, water
accessibility, and sequence of steps for development of school
facilities.
Tables IX and X report the ratings for clarity and completeness
of this segment of the document and appear on the following pages.
Comments by the respondents related to this segment appear immediately
following the tables.
Materials and Equipment— Comments. Nine respondents did not
comment specifically about this section of the programming document.
There were four comments on the inclusiveness and usefulness of this
section as follow:
This is great! It is very useful!
This is very inclusive. It will be a great

reference.
This is very complete.
I hope someone in administration sees this to know

why we need so much storage in kindergarten. It
really is complete.
I
89
TABLE IX
Frequency and Percentage of Ratings as to the Clarity of the Final

Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 Clarity
Materials
& Equipment 48 0 0 0 1 13 100%
Additional
Information 50 0 0 0 2 12 100

90
TABLE X

Final Segment of the Programming Document.
Ratings

Materials
& Equipment 49 0 0 0 2 12 100%
Additional
Information 51 0 0 0 1 13 100

91
One commented, "Totally extraneous to the subject." Another
commented, "Perfect! One question - How are the materials used? How
many (#s) are in a center at a time? What is happening in other
centers then?"
Additional Information— Comments. Seven respondents did not
comment specifically on this section of the programming document.
There were four who commented favorably about the inclusion of the
kindergarten schedules. One individual suggested moving the Schedules
to page 5. There were five respondents who suggested moving the TEA
sequence of steps for the development of school facilities to the
front of the document.
The following comments relate to the programming document as a
whole:
One comment suggested a bibliography.
One comment suggested a Table of Contents.
One comment suggested the use of a ring binderfor

"binding" the document, stating the advantage of
easily adding related materials.
One comment read, "This document is good. I'd

like for us to have 2 or 3 copies for our school
board to use."
Three comments focused on the need for administrators to be aware
of the information included in the document:
I hope our school administration and board really

look at what is in here. We need some new
facilities and this could really help.
92
Did my principal really look at this?
Are you showing this to the people in central

office? We need for them to realize some of this.
A superintendent commented, "This document has

helped me better understand kindergarten. I like
the information you have here."
Organization
Questions 52-54, the final questions to be reported, called for a
"Yes," "No" response and allowed for comment. They were asked in an
attempt to verify that the document could be used as it was intended.
In response to the question, "Do the problem statements present
needed information to the designer and yet allow for creative
solutions?", there were fourteen (100%) "Yes" responses. Comments
were offered as follows:
It gives ideas; is simple; could be used for new

or existing buildings.
It gives information for needs yet leaves design

open.
Very definitely.
Approached this way it does.
In response to the question, "Is the document organized to allow
users to add or substitute, in order to adapt it to unique local
situations?", there were thirteen (92%) "Yes" responses and one (8%)
"No" response. Comments follow:
The progression is good. I am a printer and do

lots of documents, bulletins, etc. this is well
organized, easy to use; has a good format.
93
Yes. Information is very evident. It would be

easy to use.
It’s very good!
Yes. Definitely.
Yes. Especially if a bibliography and/or

footnotes were included.
Yes, it would be easy to change.
Very much.
In response to the question "In considering what you feel are the
problems to be considered when planning a kindergarten facility, do
you feel this document could aid in answering these?", there were
fourteen (100%) "Yes" responses. Comments follow:
Somewhat. Needs work.
If it is looked at by all involved.
It's a good base.
It eliminates just drawing!
May I please have a finished copy?
It covered everything that might present a

problem.
I think so!
Really! Especially for small districts! Lack of

funds often limits their planning, etc.
One "Yes" was a qualified - "somewhat" - response.
No parts of the document fell below the 80% level. The
programming document was accepted by the fourteen respondents as
written in all four segments. The author decided to make a few
94
changes after carefully reviewiing the comments for each section as
they were felt to enhance the acceptance and useability of the
document. Revisions included the addition of a table of contents,
references and examples to further clarify use of the document and the
learning center graph. Additional questions were written for that
section entitled Questions.
Format changes resulted in placement of the kindergarten
schedules and the TEA document in the forward portion of the document
and Questions at the end. In addition, problem statements and
graphics found in Concepts were incorporated into Goals, Facts and
Needs.
Page numbers were placed after the introductory paragraph of each
learning center section referencing the materials and equipment for
that area.
Finally, wording was carefully studied for further clarity and
some substitutions were made, based on suggestions from the field.
95
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Many years of teaching, most in specialized areas of Vocational
Home Economics, nursery school and kindergarten, led to the belief
that the interaction of user, both student and teacher, with their
physical environment had a definite effect on attitudes, knowledge
acquisition, teaching methods and styles. This prompted continuation
of study in not only the College of Education, but also the College of
Architecture.
My interest was in defining a way, or ways, in which two creative
groups of people could work together toward providing facilities which
support what is expected to occur within.
Educators set goals, write curriculum objectives and plan
learning situations; architects collect and analyze data, write
programs and design related facilities. Yet there is often
dissatisfaction and frustration on the part of one or both upon
completion of a facility, because of goals not met.
The question was raised "Why?", "What is the problem?" One
possible answer, given by many, was the lack of complete
communication. This raised another question "What could be done about
it?" The answer arrived at was that possibly some form of document
could be developed; one which could be used as a guide to help
planning groups gather and communicate information designers need.
A search of the literature and an interview with state agency
personnel led to the conclusion that although much of this information
96
exists in various forms, there was no single piece initiating plans
for new or remodeled kindergarten facilities. Thus the decision was
made to write and test the useability of such a document.
Summary
As the title indicates, this document is an approach to
programming for a kindergarten facility. It is not, in the real
sense, a true programming document. However, the information
contained within should enable user groups to use it as a guide,
substitute and add information to fit the contents to their unique
local situations and write a program for their own prospective
kindergarten facility. Some of the information raises questions that
need to be addressed concerning building considerations, that,
although they are not the responsibility of the planning committee,
are concerns of which they should be aware and are often points which
cause future dissatisfaction. Other concerns are those having to do
with the users, the activities, the curriculum to be followed,
materials and equipment which will be used. This means of noting
these will perhaps result in better communication. Poor communication
and the lack of understanding of each other's needs will hopefully be
somewhat alleviated. Each person, functioning in the area he knows
best, can work together to provide truly functional, supportive
facilities.
The information on which this document was based was defined by
a careful search of literature in both the fields of education and
architecture. The document was then constructed and taken to the
97
field to determine its clarity and completeness and obtain a reaction
from those similar to potential users. Results of the field test were
then carefully studied and reported. The document met the 80% or
above acceptance level on all sections and revision was not deemed
necessary. However, as one of the concerns was to establish the
highest degree of acceptance and useability possible, there were some
word and format changes made which were indicated to make the document
even more creditable and helpful.
Conclusions
The following conclusions regarding this study are
(1) The document was judged to be clearly stated,

easy to use and comprehensive.
(2) The document helped to organize and define

information necessary for planning kindergarten
facilities.
(3) The document combined basic knowledge of

kindergarten philosophy and kindergarten facility
needs.
(4) The document provoked interest in

participants becoming future members of planning
committees for building facilities in their
districts.
(5) The terms for communication included in the

document produced responses indicative of the
value of clarification.
(6) Potential use of the document as a tool was

indicated by suggestions of other people and
groups to be made aware of its existence.
Recommendations
Because potential use of this document was strongly indicated and
98
the information within classed as being very valuable, complete and
easily understood, the following recommendations are being made.
(1) Contact the Texas Education Agency,

Elementary Curriculum Division, School Facility
Planning Division and General Education Division
to inform them of the existence of the document
and its intended use.
(2) Contact the Educational Service Centers to

inform them of the document's availability for use
when assisting districts involved in building
programs.
(3) Inform the Education Committee of the Texas

Society of Architects of the document's existence.
(4) This document should be given to potential

building committee members before they accept an
assignment on a committee which is to plan a
kindergarten facility.
(5) Submit article(s) for publication to

Education and Architecture journals describing the
document and its potential use.
(6) Encourage use of the document in university

classes to better acquaint students with the
intricacies and responsibilities involved in
planning educational facilities, specifically
those for kindergarten. The students in these
areas might specifically be targeted: early
childhood, administration, curriculum development
and architecture.
REFERENCES
Abarbanel, J. Redefining the environment, behavior and the physical

settings. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1972.
Abend, A.C., Bednar, M.J., Froehlinger, V.J. & Stenzler, Y. Facilities

for special education services, a guide for planning new and
renovated schools. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children,
1979.
Abbott, M.S., Galina, B.M., Granger, R.C. & Klein, B.L. Alternative
approaches to educating young children. Atlanta: Humanics
Limited, 1976.
Alward, K.R. Arranging the classroom for children. San Francisco: Far
West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1973.
Anderson, J.E. The development of behavior and personality. The

Nation's Schools, 1960, 2, 61.
Bennett, C. Spaces for people-human factors in design. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Bertoldi, A. A facilities program for parent child education center.

1969. Arizona State University, unpublished dissertation. In A.
Taylor. Behavioral post occupancy evaluation: the learning
environment. Paper presented for the national convention of the
American Institute of Architects, Dallas, Spring, 1978.
Bigge, M. Learning theories for teachers. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1982.
Birren, F. Light, color, and environment. New York: Van Nostrand,

• 1969.
Boehm, L. Exploring children's thinking. The Elementary School

Journal, 1961, 61, 363-71.
Brenner, M. The effects of sex, structuring and social interaction on

pre-schoolers make believe in a naturalistic setting. May, 1976,
ERIC.
Brenner, N.D. Helping children consolidate their thinking. Young

Children, National Association for the Education of Young
Children, Washington, D.C. July, 1977, 12-20.
Brown, J. Managing the preschool classroom. San Francisco: Far West

Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1975, ERIC,
129-453.
100
Brubeck, T., Vanston, A.R. Designing day care centers. Mental

Retardation. 1974, 4 32-33.
Canter, D. Psychology for architects. London: Applied Science

Publishers, 1974.
Canter, D. The psychology of place. London: Architectual Press, 1977.
Castaldi, B. Educational facilities: planning, remodeling and

management. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1977.
Cherry, C. Creative play for the developing child. Belmont, Ca.:

Fearon Publishing Co., Inc., 1976.
Cruickshank, W.M., & Quay, H.C. Learning and physical environment: the
necessity for research and research design. Exceptional Children,
1970, 37, 261-68.
David, T.G. Environmental literacy. School Review, 1974, pp. 687-705.
Davidson, T. & Steely, J. Using learning centers with not yet readers.
Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1978.
Day, C.W. Schoolhouse planning. Park Ridge, 111.: Association of

School Business Officials, 1980.
Day, D.E. & Allen, D.W. Organization for individual work. In V.

Rapport, (Ed.) Learning centers: children on their own.
Washington, D.C.: The Association for Childhood Education
International, 1970.
Day, D.E. & Sheehan, R. Arrangement of physical space in pre-school

programs. Paper presented for the national convention of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children, Dallas,
Fall, 1975.
DeJong, W.S. Participatory planning. Council of Educational Facilities

Journal, 1980, 18, 4, 4-6.
Deutsch, M. & others. Facilities for early childhood education. New

York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, N.D.
Diffrient, N., Lilley, A. & Bardagjy, J.C. Humanscale manuals 1/2/3.

Cambridge, Mass.: Henry Dreyfuss Associates, M.I.T. Press, 1974,
8.
Drew, C.J. Research on the psychological-behavioral effects of the

physical environment. Review of Educational Research, 1971, 41,
5, 447-65.
Durlak, J.T., & Lehman, J. User awareness and sensitivity to open
101
spaces: a study of traditional and open plan schools. In D.

Canter, Psychology and the built environment. London:
Architectual Press, 1974.
Elliott, B. & Woodfin, M.J. Evaluating and recording children's

activities: diagnosing educational need. In V. Rapport, (Ed.),
Learning centers: children on their own. Washington, D.C.: The
Association for Childhood Education International, 1970.
Erikson, E.H. Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,
1963.
Esser, A.H. Educational behavior and environment: Use of space by

animals and men. New York: Phenium Press, 1971. Paper prepared
for the international symposium of the American Association of
School Administrators, Dallas, 1968.
Evans, E.D. Contemporary influences in early childhood education. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
Fawcett, W. School management and school design. Journal of

Architectual Research, 1976, 5, 3, 10-21.
Fisk, L. & Clay, C. Learning centers. Glen Ridge, N.J.: Exceptional

Press, 1974.
Forte, J. & Mackenzie, J. Nooks, crannies and corners: learning

centers for creative classrooms. Nashville: Incentive Publishers,
1972.
Foster, J. & Rogers, L.R. Housing early childhood in Texas. College

Station: Innovative Resources, Inc., 1970.
Freimeyer, J.R. & Galloway, C.M. Personalized teaching and

individualized learning. In V. Rapport (Ed.) Learning centers:
children on their own. Washington, D.C.: The Association for
Childhood Education International, 1970.
Frost, J. Early childhood education rediscovered. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
Gagne, R. The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston, 1977.
Getzels, J.W. Images and visions. School Review, 1974, 527-539.
Gross, C., Wronski, H., Stanley, P. & Hanson, J.W. School and society.
Boston: D.C. Heath, 1962.
Gump, P.V. & Good, L.R. Environments operating in open space and
traditionally designed schools, Journal of Educational
102
Architectural Research, 1976, 5, 1, 20-27.
Haase, R.W. Designing the child development center. Project Head

Start, Community Action Program, Office of Economic Opportunity,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 0-298-417
Hall, E.T. The hidden dimension. Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc.,
1966.
Harmon, D.B. Lighting and child development. Illuminating engineering,

1945, 4, 199-228.
Hawkins, H. & Stack, W. School buildings: ambassadors of goodwill.

Council of Educational Facilities Planning Journal, 1978, 16,
(1), 10-3.
Heffernan, H. Pressures to start formal instruction early. In M.

Rasmussen (Ed.), Don't push me. Washington, D.C. Association for
Childhood Education International. 1960. 14-19.
Hess, R. & Croft, D.J. Teachers of young children. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1972.
Hildebrand, V. Guiding young children. New York: Macmillan Publishing

Co., Inc., 1975.
Hirsch, E.S. (Ed.) The block book. Washington, D.C.: National

Association for the Education of Young Children, 1976.
Hodgkin, R.A. Born curious: new perspectives in educational theory.

London: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
Hymes, J.L. Teaching the child under six. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1974.
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R.K. Humanscape: environment of people. North

Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1978.
Knight, E.W. Education in the United States. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1934.
Knight, E.W. Twenty centuries of education. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1940.
Knudsen, V.0. & Harris C.M. Acoustical designing in architecture. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1950.
Kohn, S. Early learning center. Stamford, Conn.: Educational

Facilities Laboratory, 1970.
Kritchevsky, S., Prescott, E., & Walling, L. Planning environments for

young children: physical space. Washington, D.C.: National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 1977.
103
Law, N. What is early childhood education?: some definitions and

issues. In J. Spitter (Ed.), Early childhood education, 1982/83.
Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1982.
Lilley, E.H. Form and function of modern educational facilities.

Council of Educational Facility Planners Journal, 1978, 16 (2),
4-6.
Looker, C.B. Theory of architecture. Champaign, 111.: Stipes

McClintock, J. & R. (Eds.), Henry Barnard's educational facilities.

New York: Teacher's College Press, Columbia University, 1970.
McClurkin, W.D., School building planning. New York: Macmillan Co.,

1964.
McQuade, W. (Ed.). Schoolhouse. New York: Simon Schuster, 1959.
Martorella, P.H., Jensen, R.S., Kean, J.M. & Voelker, A.M. Concept
learning: designs for instruction. Scranton: Intext Educational
Publishers, 1972.
Michelson, W., Levine, S. & Spina, A. The child and the city: changes
and challenges. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979.
Molloy, L. The handicapped child in the everyday classroom. Phi Delta

Kappan, 1975, 1, 337-340.
Moos, R.H. The human context-environmental determinants of behavior.

New York: John Wesley & Sons, 1976.
Morphet, W.L., Johns, R.L. & Reller, T.L. Educational organization and
administration concepts, practices and issues. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974.
Musgrove, E.M. Architects respond. Council of Educational Facilities

Planners Journal, 1978, 16, (2), 6.
Nellist, I. Planning buildings for handicapped children. London:

Crosby Lockwood & Son, Ltd., 1970.
Norberg-Schulz, C. Existence, space and architecture. New York:

Praeger Prible, 1971.
Osmon, F.L. Patterns for designing children's center. New York:

Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1971.
Palmer, M.A. The architect's guide to facility programming. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1981.
Passantino, R.J. Swedish pre-schools: environments of sensitivity.
Childhood Education, Association for Childhood Education
International, Washington, D.C., 1971, 405-411.
Passantino, R.J. Design for day care - an architecture of its own.

Council of Educational Facilities Planners Journal, 1978, 16 (3)
4-9.
Peller, L.E. On development of young children: selected papers. Emma

N. Plank (Ed.). New York: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1978.
Pena, W., Caudill, W., & Focke, J. Problem seeking: an architectual

programming primer. Boston: C.B.I. Publishing Co., 1977.
Perley, D.T. & Martin, P.H. An environmental prospective on

educational planning. Phi Delta Kappan, 1975, 82, 358-59.
Perrone, V. The changing role of the teacher. In V. Rapport (Ed.),

Learning centers: children on their own. Washington, D.C.: The
Association for Childhood Education International, 1970.
Piaget, J. The stages of the intellectual development of the child.

Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1962, 26, 3, 120-145.
Porteous, J.D. Environment and behavior. Reading. Mass.: Wesley

Pribram, K.H. & Gill, M.M. Freud's "project" re-assessed. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1976.
Proshansky, E. & Wolfe, M. The physical setting and open education.

School Review, 1974, 555-74.
Proshansky, H.M. Environmental psychology: man and his physical

setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1970.
Proshansky, H.M. Theoretical issues in environmental psychology.

School Review, 1974, 82, 541-55.
Ramsey, M. & Bayless, K. Kindergarten: programs and practices. St.

Louis: C.V. Mosby Company, 1980.
Raph, J.B. Use of Piaget's theory in instruction: practical

applications of research. Phi Delta Kappan, 1978, 1, (2), 1-2.
Robinson, P.A. Research and the child: a social learning view of

cognitive development and education. In Range. D.G., Layton, J.R
& Darrell, L. (Eds.). Aspects of early childhood education:
theory to research to practice. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
105
Rogers, V. The unrecognized environmental curriculum. Phi Delta

Kappan, 1975, 1, 305.
Rosenfield, I. Freud: character and consciousness. New York:

University Books, Inc., 1970.
Roth, A. The new school. New York: Frederick Prager, 1958.
Rouard, M. & Simon, J. Children's play spaces: from sandbox to

adventure playgrounds. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 1977.
Rowland, G.E. Human factors & building design. Building Research,

1965, 6, 12-14.
Sanoff, H. Methods of architectural programming. Stroudsburg: Dowden,

Hutchinson & Ross, 1977.
School Environment Research. SER 3, College of Architecture. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan, 1965.
Sebolt, A. Spaces that engage, retain and respond. Phi Delta Kappan,
1975, 1, 316-17.
Simmons, B.M., Whitfield, E.L., & Layton, J.R. The preparation of

early childhood teachers: philosophical and empirical
foundations. In Range, D.G., Layton, J.R. & Darrell, L. (Eds.).
Aspects of early childhood education: theory to research to
practice. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Skutch, M. & Hamlin, W.G. Environmental flexibility for pre-schoolers.

Phi Delta Kappan, 1975, 1, 326-8.
Smith, P.K. Aspects of playgroup environment. In D. Canter (Ed.)

Psychology and the built environment. London: Architectual Press,
1974.
Sommer, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
Spivak, M. The exceptional environment: strategies for design. School

Review, 1974, 8, 647-65.
Spodek, B. What are the sources of early childhood curriculum? Young

Children, 1970, 10, 48-56.
Strevell, W. H. Pre-construction planning for educational facilities.

Association of School Business Official, Research Bulletin # 13.
Park Ridge, 111.: Association of School Business Officials, 1972.
Sunderlein, S. (Ed.) Bits and pieces. Washington, D.C.: Association of

Childhood Education International, 1967.
106
Taylor, A. Behavioral post occupancy evaluation: The learning

environment. Paper presented for the national convention of the
American Institute of Architects, Dallas, Spring, 1978.
Texas Education Agency Bulletin 696. A guide for the education of

five-year-old children in Texas, 1970. (1980 excerpt).
Texas Education Agency Bulletin 732. Catalog of state adopted

kindergarten textbooks for the period of September 1, 1973
through August 31, 1977, 1973.
Texas Education Agency Bulletin. Development of a play environment,

1978.
Thomas, J.I. From kindergarten to what? The National Elementary

Principal, 1968, 47, 3, 44-45.
Thomas, J.I. Learning centers: opening up the classroom. Boston:

Holbrook Press, 1975.
Todd V. & Heffernan, H. The years before school: guiding preschool

children. New York: Macmillan, 1977.
Waechter, H.H. & Waechter, E. Schools for the very young. New York:
F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1951.
Waligura, R.L. Environment criteria: M.R. preschool facilities.

College Station, TX: College of Architecture and Environmental
Design, Texas A&M University, 1972.
Wann, K.D., Dorn, M.S. & Liddle, E. Fostering intellectual development

in young children. New York: Teachers College Press, 1962.
Watson, O.M. Proxemic behavior, a cross-cultural study. Paris: Mouton,

1970.
Wesley, B.E. The poor history of education. History of Education

Quarterly, 1969, 3, 329-42, 337.
Widmer, E.L. The critical years: early childhood education at the

crossroads. Scranton: International Textbook Co., 1970.
Zeisel, J. Sociology and architectural design. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation, 1975.
Zelip, F.F. A handbook for school business officials. Chicago:

Research Corporation of the Association of School Business
Officials, 1968, 8, 29-32.
107
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO ARCHITECT REQUESTING NAMES FOR

PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENTS AND LETTER OF REPLY
April 3, 1983
380? Fourth Street
Bryan, Texas 77801
Mr. Sene Hildinger

1700 Eastgate Drive 110
Garland, Texas 73041
Dear Mr. Sildinger,
As a doctoral candidate at Texas A&M University, I an writing

a document to be used by members of committees involved in plan
ning kindergarten facilities.
In order to validate the document for clarity, completeness and

useability, I an asking people from each of several groups to
review the document and then spend appro Ornately 30 minutes in
a personal interview discussing their perceptions and making re
commendations.
I am using the following groups as representative of planning

committees: school board members, superintendents of schools,
curriculum directors(or equivalent),principals of schools hous
ing kindergartens, kindergarten teachers, parents of kindergar
teners and professional designers.
David V/oodcock, one of ay committee members, has suggested you,

as chairman of TSA's Architecture for Education Committee, as
a source for respondents in my professional designers group.
Would you be willing to suggest* two members of your committee
(plus an alternate) whom I could contact to aid in the valida
tion of my document An.Attroach to ?r^c— f0r Kindergarten
Facilities? I am an early childhood specialist and will receive
an Sd.D. in Curriculum and Instruction at the completion of this
3ecord of Study. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Joanne S. Berridge
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A U C H IT E C T W -A N N C H S M jM M K I A M C N IC A M IN S T IT U T E Of A R C H ITE C TS
April 1 1 , 1 9 8 3
Joanne S. Berridge
3 8 0 7 Fourth Slreet
Bryan, Te x a s 7 7 8 0 1
Dear M s . Berridge:
I have listed below three long-time m e m b e r s of the Architecture for Education Committee
of the T e x a s Society of Architects. I feel sure they are all well-qualified in planning
kindergarten facilities and would be of great help to you in reviewing and making
recommendations.
Allen G . Weym out h
Cavitt, McKnight, W e y m o u t h
4 6 0 0 Post Oa k Place, Suite 1 1 0
Houston, Texas 7 7 0 2 7
(713) 6 2 1 - 2 4 7 1
Bert E . R a y
Denny, R a y & Wines
3 1 3 3 Buffalo Speedway, 2 1 6
Houston, Texas 7 7 0 9 8
(713) 6 2 2 - 2 6 7 1
J. Euge ne M c K e e
Brasher-Goyette-Rapier
5 1 2 E. Riverside Drive, 2 0 0
Austin, Te xa s 7 8 7 0 4
(512) 4 4 7 - 7 7 1 9
If I can be of any further assistance, please let m e know.
Sincerely
G e n e Ffildinger, A.I A
Architect
GH :b h
:0C - O J * W V • : ; *o E A S T G A T E G P I V E . S U I T E ; 0 . S A S L A N O . T E X A S 7 4 0 4 1 . (2 U I 2 7 3 - 4 4 3 -
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE LETTER TO ARCHITECTS REQUESTING

THEIR PARTICIPATION
April 20, 1983
Dear
As a doctoral candidate at Texas A&M University, I as writing a

document' to be used by members of committees involved in planning
kindergarten facilities.

useability, I am asking people from each of several groups to re
view the document and then spend approximately 30 minutes in a
personal interview discussing their perceptions and making recom
mendations.
I am using the following groups as representative of planning

committees: school board members, superintendents of schools,
curriculum directors (or equivalent)principals of schools hous
ing kindergartens, kindergarten teachers, parents of kindergar
teners and professional designers.
I contacted Mr. Gene Sildinger and asked that he suggest persons

to use as respondents in my professional designers group.' Your
name was one he listed as a long-time member of the Architecture
for Education Committee of the Texas Society of Architects.
7/ould you be willing to participate in this study? My document

is An Approach to Programming for Kindergarten facilities. Please
indicate your willingness (or inability; to participate on the
enclosed postal card. I will contact you to set an interview date
and to provide you with a copy of the document upon receipt of
your answer.
Sincerely,
Joanne S. Berridge
3807 Fourth Street
3ryan, Texas 77801
112
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE LETTER TO PERSONS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

REQUESTING THEIR PARTICIPATION
April 29, 1983
3807 Fourth
Bryan, Texas 77801
Dear
As a doctoral candidate at Texas A&M University, I am writing a

document to be used by members of committees involved in planning
kindergarten facilities.

useability, I am asking people .from each of several groups to re
view the document and then spend appropriately 30 minutes is a
personal interview discussing their perceptions and making recom
mendations.
In the development of educational facilities, planning teams ty

pically include members from each of the following groups: school
board members, superintendents of schools, curriculum directors
(or equivalent), principals of schools housing kindergartens,
kindergarten teachers, parents and professional designers.
You have been chosen to participate in this Texas A&M study as
a person representative of a group member. Please indicate your
willingness (or inability) to participate on the enclosed self-
addressed postal card and return it to me. I will contact you
to provide a copy of the document and to set an interview time
prior to May 25.
At the completion of the study, you will be provided a summary

of the document, which may be of assistance to you in future
facility planning.
Thank you,
Joanne S. Berridge
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE OF POSTAL CARD REPLY WHICH PROSPECTIVE

RESPONDENTS RETURNED
I w i l l be w i l l i n g t o re v ie w y o u r program m ing
docum ent f o r v a l i d a t i o n .
I w i l l be u n a b le to h e lp you
(n am e) (p le a s e p r i n t )
P le a s e mark y o u r r e p ly and r e tu r n t h i s c a r d .
Thank y o u ,
J oan ne S. B e r rid g e
409-846-2572
11 6
APPENDIX E
LETTER TO CBI PUBLISHING COMPANY REQUESTING

PERMISSION TO USE SPECIFIED INFORMATION AND
THEIR LETTER IN REPLY
117
Marsh 6, 1983
38.07 Fourth Street
Bryan, Texas 77801
CBI Publishing Company, Inc.

5i Sleeper Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Attention, Copyright Department:
I am a doctoral candidate at Texas A & M University. My He cord

of Study, titled An Approach to Programming for Kindergarten
facilities is based on material from Problem Seeking - A n Arch
tec curai yrb g r g ^ m g Primer by Cillian tl rena.
There are tmo sets of information in Mr. Pena's book trhich I

mould like to include in the appendix of my document and I re
quest permission to ao so. The items are:
Cost Bstimate Analysis - Chart - page 79
Cost Bstimate Analysis - 'explanations - page 103
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Joanne S. Berridge
Cd
CBI CBI Publishing Company, Inc.
286Congress Street. Boston. .Massachusetts02210 /(6171426-2224 /Telex:940949
March 11, 1983
Ms. Joanna S.Berridge

3807 Fourth Street
Bryan, 13 77801
Dear Ms. Berridge,
Thank you for your letter of March 6th concerning Willies Pena's
Problem Seeking. CBI Publishing Co., Inc., is pleased to grant
you permission to use the following material in your Second of
Study:
Problem Seeking: An Architectural Progr»”’",("g

C3I Publishing Co., Inc., 1977; page 79, Cost Estimate analysis
chart; page 103, Cost Estimate Analysis explanations.
It is understood that an appropriate credit line will be used,

including the title, author, publisher, and copyright dace.
Thank you for your interest in our publications.
Slnci
George M.Abbott
Senior Editor
■Business/Professional/Reference
GMA/lc
119
APPENDIX F
COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT
120
In responding to this document, you are being asked to evaluate

and sake suggestions concerning the following:
. The document communicates with Its potential users
In terminology which is clear and concise
. Information is useful - accurate, comprehensive
and able to be adapted
Much of the information is general. Sach user group will seed to

make it specific to their situation.
As you examine the contests, please mark for our discussion any
terminology you find unclear and write any suggestions or questions
concerning the information and its organization. Please use the
following guidelines. A pen is enclosed.
circle any word or phrase you do not understand (you

feel is not clear)
. underline any information you feel is inaccurate
. note in the margin any additional information you feel
should be included
You are not being asked to evaluate the philosophy of learning
center instruction or the presence of centers in kindergarten.

Thank you for the benefit of your expertise in the validation
of this document as a useful aid in the planning of kindergarten
facilities.
Joanne S. Berridge
3807 Fourth Street
Bryan, Texas 77801
409-846-2572
121
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
122
Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Date of interview
Time of interview
INTEHVIES QHESTI0HNAI3E
Group: School Board Member Superintendent Curriculum

QLrector_ Elementary School Principal Kindergarten
Teacber_ Parent Professional Desigaer_.
1. How Ion* have vou been in your uresent oosition?
2. 7/hat was vou nrevious oosition?
3. Have you ever taught in a kindergarten situation? Yes jja_

If ves. comment
k. Have you ever supervised a kindergarten program? Yes No__

If ves. comment
5. Have you ever been involved in planning learning facilities?

Yes __ No _ _ If yes, please respond to the following:
6. ‘.That kind of facilities were being planned? _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7. VThat method was used in planning?
3. Tell me your overall feelings about this experience.
9. Suppose your district appointed you, tomorrow, to a committee

for planning kindergarten facilities. Tell me what contribu
tions you see yourself making. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
As we look at each of the sections in this document, I would like

for you to keep in mind that it is a guide. Individual users will
need to adapt it to meet their own district's unique characteris
tics and needs. However, I believe there is basic information
from which a framework can be built, and it is this information
which is presented here. Experienced professionals can use this
information in their own approach to programming for kindergarten
facilities for their individual situations.
10. Pirst, I would like for you to look at the Introduction for
its degree of clarity. On a scale of i to 5 ("not d e a r " to
"very clear") where would you rate this section?
11. Now again please consider the information in the Introduction

for its completeness. On a scale of i to 5 ( "not enough" to
"very complete") how would you rate it?
123
As we look at each of the remaining sections of this document, the

same too questions sill be asked you.
(All even-numbered question , 10 through 30, sill deal with clar

ity and all add-numbered questions, 11 through 31, sill deal with
completeness. The question of accuracy, completeness and compre
hension are further dealt with through the recording of markings
and comments made by reviewers on their copies of the document
at their initial reading)
52. Do the problem statements present needed information to the

designer and yet allow for* creative solutions? Yes Ho
If no, please cite instances or comment
53. Is the document organized to allow users to add, or substi

tute,. in order to adapt it to unique local situations? ^
3k* la considering what you feel are the problems to be consider

ed when planning a kindergarten facility, do you feel this
document could aid in answering these? Yes No
Comments____________________________________________________
RECORDING SHEET FOB INTEBVIEV QUESTIONNAIRE
not very
Introduction 10. clarity clear clear
i 2 3 A 5
not very
11. completeness enough complete
i 2 u 5
not very
Philosophy 12* clarity clear clear
i 2 3 L 5
not very
1 2 3 L ?
How To Make not very

This... lours iI*. clarity clear clear
i 5 L 5.
not very
1 S 3 U 5
not very
Questions 16. clarity clear clear
1 2 3 it _ 5
not very
i 2 3 L 5
not very
Terms to :8. clarity clear clear
Communicate e
1 2 0 u
not very
1 2 L . 5
125
not very
Goals 20. clarity clear clear
I 2.___ 3 u 5
not very
21* completeness enough complete
i 2 3 L 5
not very
Facts 22. clarity clear clear
i ■s 3 L 5
not very
i I 3 L 5
not very
Concepts 24* clarity clear clear
1 3 L e
not very
i 5 f. e
not very
Heeds 26. clarity clear clear
t 5 * L 5
not very
l 2 L 5 .
not very
Problem 28. clarity clear clear
Statements
(Total
Facility)
not very
1 3 3 L .5
Problem
Statements
(Centers)
not very
Art 30. clarity clear clear
i 5 ■Z, L -5
126
not very
Art 31. completeness enough complete
(coat.) 1 2 3 L
not very
Blocks 32. clarity clear clear
1 2 3 U 7
not very
1 3 3 U 5
not very
Homemaking 34. clarity clear clear
(Housekeeping) 1 L
L . __I ..5
not very
35« completeness enough complete
1 3 (1 5
not very
Library 36. clarity clear clear
(Language i 3 h'
and media) 3
not very
1 2 3 b. 5
not very
Manipulate!ves 32. clarity clear clear
l I 7
not very
1 3 3 L 5
not very
Music clarity clear clear
1 3 3 u 3
not very
k u completeness enough complete
1 3— u — 5
127
not very
Outside 42. clarity clear - clear
i 2 U 5
not very
4-3. completeness enough complete
1 2 * u 5
not very
Science 44. clarity clear clear
i a ?
not very
45• completeness enough complete
i a 5 e
not very
'.7ood 46* clarity clear clear
Marking 1 a A ■5
not very
1 2 !±
not very
Materials 43. clarity clear clear
and t a
Equipment 7 4 5
not very
1 I 5 L 5
Additional not very

Information 50. clarity clear clear
i 2 U 5
not very
i 2 _I _ u 5
123
APPENDIX H
DOCUMENT, AN APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING FOR

KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES
Joanne Sheiboume Berridge
®Joanne Shelbourne Berridge 1983
T A B L E OF CO NTENTS
Page
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How to Make This Programming Document Y o u r s . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Terms to Help Us C ommunicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Kindergarten Schedules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sequence of Steps for the Development of School
Facilities - T E A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G o a l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F a c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS
N e e d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Problem Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Learning Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Blocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Housekeeping (Home) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
L i b r a r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Manipulative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-
Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Outdoor....................... 42
S c i e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Woodworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Learning Center Relationships (Graph) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Materials and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B l o c k s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Housekeeping. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Manipulative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Outdoor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Indoor Large Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Woodworking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Teacher Work A r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Additional Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Building Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Cost Estimate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Area Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Water A c c e s s i b i l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Questions ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
132
Introduction
"the building is the s i lent

grC O K C A & & eO0KCA$S teacher"
Charles Silberman
Children tend to behave in
ways suggested by the ar-
rangement and contents of the
physical settings in which
'TABLE $ t hey find themselves. Space,
1n a very real sense, c o m m u n i
C M USES cates. Well organized space
makes it easy for goal- r e l at e d
behavior to occur and allows
the teaching staff greater
freedom of choice in their
selection of teaching a c t i v i
ties. Poor spatial design can
create many undesirable b e
haviors and impede learning.
Kindergarten education will
vary from school district to
school district, even school
to school within a distri.ct.
Specific objectives are based
on local need. The state of
Texas, in 3ulletin 696, has
established general guidelines
for the initiation and o p e r a
tion of an educational p r o g r a m
for five-year-olds in Texas.
Th is bulletin states that
“daily activities should be
rich and diversified in c o n
crete, manipulative and s e n
sory learning experiences."
(p. 12). Classrooms are d e
scribed as well lighted, c o m
inuinu fortable laboratories which
c ontain learning centers that
provide opoortunities for
children to explore, e xercise
initiative and develop r e
STABLE i sourcefulness. They allow for
large and small group in
CMAJJtS struction, as well as i n d i
vidual instruction.
6 ^ 6 This document 1s based on
these guidelines and has been
133
produced to aid in providing the last step in the process.

physical facilities for They tell in a clear, concise
kindergarteners. It is a manner what should happen and
program for one facility for how it should happen and
20 to 25 five-year-old child stress the uniqueness of the
ren. Considerations will project.
need to be made concerning
relationships between inside Educators and architects alike
learning areas if provisions bear a great responsibility
are to be made for two or more when developing a learning
groups. facility. Only analysis,
based on facts and profession
The intent of programming is al insight, should be the
to furnish the designer with basis for decisions. E d uc a
sufficient, pertinent infor tional Facilities Labora
mation so that he can create tories suggests that the
spaces in which children can organization of physical space
do what teachers want them to in schools should be d e t e r
do. The first step is selec mined by the teaching methods
tion of a planning team whose used in working with the
members represent children, general knowledge of
how children grow, develop and
Board of Education learn, knowledge of how child
Superintendent of Schools ren behave in groups and e cono
Elementary Curriculum mics .
Director (or equivalent)
Principal of School hous
ing a Kindergarten
Kindergarten Teacher
Parent of a Child in
K1ndergarten
Professional Oesigner
Ideally, each group will have
several representatives on the
team. It is also desirable
to obtain input from the child
ren who use the facilities.
The designer(s) are the plan
ning coordinators. The second
step involves work to gener
ate information, become aware
of each other's problems and
strive to keep personal bias
in check. Interviewing of
many persons representative of
the client/user group is e n
couraged in the process of
data collection. Then work
sessions involving the entire
group should follow, at which
time Information is verified
for accuracy and compre
hensiveness, and decisions are
begun. Problem statements are
P h ilo so p hy Knowledge of child growth and
development, children's b e
havior in groups, learning
"Good buildings don't just theory and relationships
happen.“ between physical space and
William M. Pena behavior all contribute
toward providing o p ti m u m
Kindergarten education p r o learning situations for
vides a year of highly I ndi children.
vidualized learning e x
periences, uniquely adapted Each member of the planning
to f1ve-year-old children at t eam for facilities has a
an optimum time in their responsibility for c o n t r i b u
development. Concrete, multi- ting from his own area of
sensory experiences help expertise and his u nique
children develop basic c o n perspective.
cepts, skill, abilities,
a ttitudes and knowledge. This team, working closely
together, and using the d o c u
The kindergarten facility is ment as a take-off point,
a planned environment where should provide the d e signer
teachers and children work with concise information which
together tc satisfy the he can translate to physical
intellectual, psychological, solutions.
physical and social needs of
each individual. Kindergarten
classrooms are laboratories
where children are free to
explore and experiment in
various centers of interest
equipped with challenging
materials.
How to Make This self with the document and
relate to its contents from
Programming Document his own area of expertise.
Yours Example for adaptation: If you
live 1n an area in which rain,
snow, extreme heat etc. hinder
There are many ways of a p use of outside spaces for several
proaching planning. The ap days or weeks at a time a facili
proach used here is that of ty problem statement might be:
problem seeking as set forth Facility should provide an
in Problem Seeking: An inside, or covered outside,
Archi tec-tural ProorammTno area 20-25 feet to engage in
Primer by William Pena of large motor activities.
Caudill, Rowlett & Scott, a
well known architectural firm.
This document, as the title
indicates, is an approach to
programming for kindergarten
facilities, and it is a n t i c i
pated that user groups will
take the information and
adapt it to fit their uniaue
needs and goals. The a s s u m p
tion is made that after c a r e
ful study of each of the
sections, additions and
changes can be made in order
to write your own program.
The purpose of providing the
detailed information was not
to lessen the involvement of
qualified personnel nor to
attempt to produce a manual to
be used as is. Rather, it was
an attempt to draw t o gether a
large amount of pertinent in
formation and present it in a PH06KAW MW6
useable format, hopefully OOCUW W T
raising questions'and saving
you time while working toward
y o ur goal of quality f a c i l i
ties which support y o ur e d u c a
tional program.
It should be re-emphasized
that this approach in no way
is intended to be a pattern
for building; rather, it is a
guide for program development.
Each member of the planning
team should familiarize h i m
136
Kindergarten Facility - Physi-

Terms To Help Us cal space designed to support
the educational goals and
Communicate philosophy of the community.
It should be attractive, clean,
well organized, flexible, in
Building Efficiency - The de- teresting and planned to sup
gree to which the design pro port the users' age-level
vides for maximum user characteristics, size and needs.
effectiveness and supports
operation and maintenance at learning Center - A designated
a minimum level of time, area within a larger area, d e
effort and cost. signed to promote the mastery
of skills, acquisition of
Useable Space a Building knowledge, development of con
Total Space Efficiency cepts, or the formalization of
generalizations. A learning
Concept - Something imagined center has no set shape and
in the mind; an idea or notion can be either temporary or
one wishes to see happen. permanent. It provides a
variety of activities, simple
Concrete - Tangible; genuine. to complex, concrete to ab
Used by educators to denote stract, affording the users
use of actual objects, ma maximum opportunities to plan,
terials and hands-on activi pursue and evaluate their own
ties, rather than verbal de learning at their own level.
scription and abstract thought.
Multi-sensory - Provisions are
Cost Effectiveness - Money made for cha 11enging/involving
saved in initial expenditures all of the senses - sight,
of design, construction and sound, taste, touch, smell -
furnishings plus long-range which are major vehicles for
maintenance balance with the learning in the young child.
total efficiency of the
facility. Needs - Requirements; things
necessary, indispensable or
Fact - Information gathered wanted. Can be categorized as
from investigation and study physical, psychological, social
which is accepted to be true or cognitive.
and is used as a basis for
discussion and decisions. Performance - Accomplish or
fulfil 1 agreed-upon require
Goals - Things which are ments. How something will
wanted; achievements or ac work, be used, support or
complishments which are de enhance.
sired. Effort toward attain
ment or accomplishment is Problem Statement - Perfor-
implied. mance criteria! Clear, concise
statements which stress the
Kindergarten Education - A uniqueness of the project.
unique educational program They should anticipate solu
which speaks to the physical, tions by stating problems that
intellectual, social and emo need answers, giving useful
tional needs of five-year-old information. The last step in
chi 1d r e n . information gathering.
Program - A series of state
ments wnicn communicate the
needs of the client to the
designer. Purposeful,
specific, systemized informa
tion dealing with human,
physical and external factors
which mignt influence the d e
sign of the facility.
Programming - An organized and
rational process of gathering
gate employing client/user
participation, and processing
this data into meaningful in
formation to aid in decision
making for design.
Seale - Relative size; the set
of1 measurements which represent
a given object; the size
relationships between objects
and people.
Useable Soace - Total space
less corridors, walls, mechani
cal, stairs, elevators, etc.
Kindergarten Schedules FULL DAY SCHEDULE
Arrival - limited 15-20 m i n .
Many different types of sche center use
dules are possible for kinder Initial group - 10--30 m i n .
garten. Some follow a half open/plan
day (2 1/2 - 3 hours) plan, Work/centers 60-70 mi n .
while others follow a full day Clean-up 10-15 mi n .
(approximately 7 hours) sche Snack/di scuss 15--20 min.
dule. Each type has its own Outside 30.-40 min.
unique problems and planners Assess AM 10-15 min.
define a schedule best suited Clean-up for 10 mi n .
to each group of children and 1 unch
set of circumstances. Care is Lunch 30-40 m i n .
taken to assure that the sche Rest - 30-60 m i n .
dule is child oriented, flexi nap/quiet time
ble and carefully paced. Ex Story/pl an 15-20 min.
act time schedules are not Work/centers 30-60 min.
identified in this document. Clean-up 10.-15 mi n .
Time allotments and sugges Group - story/ 15.-30 mi n .
tions of general routines are music/recall
given to aid the users in Oismi ss 5 min.
better understanding the uses
of the f aci1i t y . •Late bus children plan and
use limited number of centers.
HALF-DAY SCHEDULING May last 15-60 minutes.
Arrival - 1 imited 15-20 mi n •If children arrive very
center use early, snack time may vary.
Initial group - 10-20 mi n
ooen/plan •Outside time may vary accord
'Hork/centers 45-60 mi n ing to weather - HOT - early;
Clean-up * 10-15 min COLO/DAMP - late.
Snack/di scuss 15-20 m1n
Outside 20-30 min
Group - story/ 20-30 min
musi c/recal1
Dismiss 5-10 min
•Afternoon group may have 10-
15 minute rest time.
•Children use toilets/get
drinks as needed throughout
session.
•Sometimes outside time may
follow initial group and work/
center come after snack.
•Center time has flow between
all centers, in and out,
ideally)
S E Q U E N C E OF STEPS FOR T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF S C H O O L F A C I L I T I E S
1. Formulation of Educational Objectives: A statement of the

philosophy o?“ those who will run the school is drawn up.
Tentative curriculum schedules are developed based on the
projected needs of the students and surrounding community.
A consultant may be employed to ascertain growth trends
and to establish optimum facility capacities. The area in
which the new school is to be built is analyzed and poten
tial sites are examined. At this stage the variety of
buried "premises" behind educational objectives should be
critically examined.
2. School Plant Survey: Here existing facilities are evalua-
ted and their relevance to future needs determined. Edu
cational objectives are related to the specifications plan
ned for individual buildings. There specifications include
detailed listings of space requirements for administrative,
staff, student, and maintenance areas with a description of
the activities that each will encompass.
3. Architectural Involvement and Planning; The site is selec
ted and an architect is retained to translate the e d u c a
tional specifications into preliminary and final plans.
The relationships among different areas of the building are
considered and the mechanical, heating, electrical, light
ing, and ventilation systems coordinated. Such factors as
the interaction between individuals and their environment
receive special attention at this stage.
4. Program Imolementation and Realization: Official approval
is obtained for proposed developments and the public is in
formed of the district's specific needs. The building is
constructed, the site developed, and the necessary furn i
ture and equipment procured. Although in actuality this
step occurs long after the specifications are written, many
of the documents discuss it because of its relevance to the
detailed decisions that must be made in the preceding steps.
5. Maintenance: This stage should properly be considered
througnout the development sequence because a good m a i n
tenance and operations program depends upon the forethought
of the building's planners.
Educational specifications include a detailed description of: (1) all the

activities that will take place 1n the buildings; (2) the curriculum to be
provided for; (3) specific architectural characteristics desired; (4) the
facilities needed, equipment required and space relationship of these to
other facilities; and (5) budget and other governing factors. The community
background and history and the educational philosophy of the school district
should precede the detailed specifications.
Texas Education Agency (1964)
iO
G O ALS
U1
Goals
A w e ll-rounded kindergarten
program will contribute to the
physical, social, emotional
and intellectual needs of each
individual. Specific o b j e c
tives based on individual and
community needs are the re
sponsibility of the local
district and teacher.
The five-year-old should begin
to develop the following:
< A unique c h ar acter and
personality traits
• The ability to ooserve,
experiment, discover,
think and generalize
• A broad voca b u l a ry and
skills for effective
c ommunication with peers
and adults
• An awareness and u n d e r
standing of the physical
world through concrete
learning experiences
• Concepts and skills asso
ciated w ith the beginning
u nderstanding of number
The ability to express
thoughts and feelings
creatively through art,
music, language, c o n
struction and dramatic
play
Listening skills and
visual and auditory d i s
crimination
Social skill for i n t e r
acting with peers and
adults
A t te n tiveness to personal
health and cleanliness
Large and small motor
skills
Self- c o n fi d e n ce and inde
pendence through succ e s s
ful learning experiences
An u nderstanding and a p
preciation of the social
and cultural traditions
10
142
within family and com ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

munity
An understanding about Full Day Programs - Decisions
the economics and history concerning meals and nap/rest
of our society time must be made, i.e.,
ability to eat snacks and
meals within the area, ability
to darken room and provide
The facility should offer: rest places for 20-25 children
and storage for mat/cots
Spaces which provide for (further details on p. 28).
chi 1d-selected use of
materials, equipment. Occupation date should appear -
Storage for the wealth of i.e., Occupancy on or before
concrete teaching ma June 15, 1984.
terials found in Kinder
garten (pp. 50 to 58).
Learning centers which
provide for individual
and small group (2-8)
activity
Opportunities to work
with others in large
groups (20-25)
A secure, safe environ
ment responsive to stu
dent needs and designed
to match physical stature
and abilities
Spaces which enable the
teacher to work ef
ficiently, effectively
and comfortably
A learning environment
which makes use of the
total space, both inside
and outside
A message of worth and
personal identity to
users, parents and com-
muni ty
A well-ordered, attrac
tive, stimulating environ
ment in which to function
and grow
Flexibility for arrange
ment and for future e x
pansion
A
Energy efficiency plus
user control and aware
ness of energy factors
143
The design supports learning

and teaches - arrangement,
color, wall and floor finishes,
special graphics, support
systems, fixed and moveable
equipment.
The design promotes

independence, order
and exploration.
Floor, wall and table/

counter finishes are su it
able for uses/activities
occurring and the means
for cleaning are readily
available.
12
‘s Reach Radius
29.3
O.S |---
49.2
Easy High Reach
45.1
Reach id.I
Radius
15.7
12.3
\2 3 . High
Counter
Low
Counter
FACTS
•Humanscale Manuals 1/2/ 3 . Oiffrlent, Neils, Alvin R. Li H e y ,
Joan C. Bardagjy. Henry Oreyfuss Associates, MIT Press.
Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
146
Facts
General Characteristics of a
five-year-old:
Socio-Emotional Perceptual-Motor
Young and very tender Not a good sitter
• Shy Eye-hand control behind
• Wants to feel proud, big, large motor, but growing
important Self-sufficient in
Highly egocentric personal care
Has a private dream world Runs, skips and dances
• Acquiescent in response to music
Differentiates male and Is learning to roller
female roles skate, jump rope, ride
Loud, often noisy - not a bicycle
good at keeping quiet Catches a ball 5" in
run loving diameter
Gets along well in small Speaks fluently and
groups correctly
• Listens and takes turns Is growing rapidly
in group discussions Is very active, but often
Begins to show respect tires easily
for group property and Generally has developed
rights of others hand preference
Asks for adult help if
needed
Conforms to adult ideas
15
147
Intellectual Relati onships

A beginner Child/child
Full of questions Chi 1d/adult
Hungry for stimulation Chi 1 d/equipment
Earthy, practical, con Chi Id/environment
crete minded Adult/envi ronment
Unlearned
Explores his neighborhood All relationships should be
Runs simple errands studied and carefully defined.
Learning to identify
coi ns
Interested in clocks and
time
Oraws what he has in mind
Learning the concept of
number and recognizes
some numerals
Recognizes some letters
and reads and writes his
name
Asks meaning of words
Works puzzles of 10 or 1 S en 00!
more pieces
Learning concept of like
and different
Attention span varies
greatly
Uses all his senses in
1earni ng
*It is important to align

"facts" with local situations
Characteristics of a Good
Kindergarten Teacher
Respects the individual
chi Id
Child-centered, society-
centered and subject-
matter centered
Uses initiative and
resourceful in working
with children and adults
Creative
Energetic
Physically fit
A growing individual
Resourceful - a scavenger
Caring, aware, patient
and warm
An orches t r at o r ; a plan
ner
16
143
Design can impede or support

the desired activities which
occur within a facility. There
must be a match between the
teaching/learning philosophy
and the design of facility.
Storage considerations -
Storage is a major considers*
tion in a kindergarten. Tt
should relate to numbers and
sizes of materials (pp. SO to
S3) and to convenience/
accessibility for users.
• The major portion of
storage needs to be ad
jacent to the place where
Its contents will be 1n
use
N • Storage for teacher use
only can be located out
of the child’s "use"
range and still be a c
cessible to the adult
One unit of storage needs
to be provided which has
the property of closure/
lock
Teachers need places for
cumulative records, atten
dance records, curriculum
plans, etc. This does not
need to be translated as a
UTJK---------------
Chi 1dren and teachers need
separate places for their
wraps and personal be
longings
Children use hooks and
drawers with much greater
ease than hangers and
shelves
A major portion of the
“care” of a kindergarten
facility is accomplished
as the children and teach
ers work in the environ
ment, therefore equipment
and supplies for cleaning
need to be immediately
available to children and
adults
17
149
Community Description - each quality level and identifica

community snoula describe its tion of real needs are of
economic, cultural, educa m a jo r importance. (Worth of
tional and employment makeup. a facility can be measured by
Any statistical projections on its ability to accommodate its
growth, school populations or intended use.) Cost estimate
other p e rt inent information information can be found in
should be included. the final section of the d o cu
Site Description - particulars ment.
of the site snould be noted: Building Efficiency - the
(physical, legal, climatic and building w i 1i De creatively
aesthetic) designed to improve the in
Urban context structional effectiveness,
Zone regulations support use of materials and
Drainage regulations equipment, store needed m a
Soil analysis terials and be easily m a i n
V i cinity land use tained.
Views from/to site Functional Support - the fa-
Location c i 1 ity must assist the users
Site/size/configuration in working efficiently, c o n
A c c e s s i b i 1 ity v eniently and effectively.
Walking distances T h er efore it will provide
T r affic volume adequate, organized space of
T o po g r a p hy good quality.
Tree cover N e ighborhood - consideration
B u il dable areas snould be given to surrounding
Existing structures area - rest of school, a d ja
Land acquisition potential cent houses, businesses, city
Climate Analvsi s - detailed in- support services, parks - as
formation concerning tempera enhancements for learning and
ture ranges, rainfall - amount the relationship to the ne ig h
and season, wind-force and borhood defined.
direction, sunny/overcast days,
are important as they may
affect both curriculum/
activity and building design.
Code Survey - local, state and
national codes and guidelines
must be identified for compli
ance
T raf f i c Analysis - traffic
patterns m ust be identified by
place, time and number. M o ve
ment within the facility and
between the inside and outside
learning area must be recorded.
Also m o vement at arrival/
dismissal and to and from other
parts of the' campus must be
considered.
Cost - it is imperative to es-
tablish a realistic budget.
Cost control begins with p r o
gramming. Agreement on a
13
50
NEEDS
N eeds
Oesign allows for visual
interaction between interior
Total space, inside/out and exterior of facility
side, treated as a compre Inside learning area has
hensive learning environ direct access to exterior
ment learning area
Visual access to total Ability to control light
space by adults in order amounts and sources to
to work at maximum level meet needs as they change
of guidance, resource, in Room presents a sense of
structional capacities order to children and adults
n.
20
Adequate storage for m a Place for storage of first
terials and equipment In aid supplies
use, supplementary materi Materials and design en
als, teaching systems and courage responsibility and
other aids, records kept respect for property
concerning children, and
miscellaneous supplies
Places where children can
put personal belongings
for safe keeping
Places for wraps and rain
wear that are well-venti
lated, can accommodate 20-
25 f1ve-year-olds dressing
and that consider their
size and motor coordina
tion abilities
Private place for teachers
wraps and personal belong
ings
Design allows children to
work to the maximum level
of their abilitles: in
caring for personal needs
1n care and use of
ment and materials
learning centers; 1
development of thei
M ' 4
and physical skills

knowledge
Safety a top priority
Materials and finishes
that allow normal kinder
garten activities free of
concern for damage
Sound control to achieve
an acceptable level of
noise with special con
sideration to Impact noise
and aceoustlcal privacy
for ou 1et work areas
P laces s h ou l d exist that
can serve Individuals,
g roups of 2-3 and total
class gr ou p of 20-2S
S u f f i c i e n t space must be
p r o v i d e d to prevent c o n
flict c a u s e d by activities
e x p a n d i n g into adjacent
areas
Scale is crucial
A v a ri e t y of seating a r
r a ng e m e n t s and work s u r
faces t hat cons i d e r the
physical dimensions and
b e h a v i o r char a c t e ri s t i cs
of the f 1 v e - y e a r- o l d
Places of interest that
cause w a tc h i n g /l e a r ni n g
through o b se r vation
Places for lingering -
t r an s i t i on places (pauses
are refreshing)
Places for overlooking;
close to acti v i t i es , but
remo v e d and above
Places w h e r e a sense of
privacy can be experienced
(but not Isolation)
Local ident i f i ca t i o n of
parking needs for parents
and teachers and for bus
and car delivery of st u
dents m ust be made
. Building e f fi c i e n cy level
must be e s t a b l i s he d (see
p. 591
C o nstruction qual i t y -
austere, economical,
moderate, exce l l e n t, grand
or suoerb - will affect
cost/sq. ft. - n e ed/money
available must be balanced
here
• An energy budget, an o u t
line of o p er a t i n g costs and
a report of life cycle
costs might be d e si rable
as additional d e cision
making information
• A realistic esca l a t i on
factor m ust be c o nsidered
to cover the time lag b e
tween p r og r amming and mid-
construction
• Phasing of c o ns t r u c ti o n may
be considered if:
initial budget is
1 imi ted
funds are a v ai lable over
a period of time
functional needs are e x
pected to grow
i
PROBLEM S TA TE M E N TS
Problem Statements The f acility and site are
d e v e l o p e d as a total learn
ing environment
T h e total kinde r g a rt e n T h e f a c i l i t y should pro
faci l i t y will be addressed v ide n e c e s s a r y supoorts
i nit i a l l y, and individual fo r e a se of use to those
l e a r n i n g c e nt e r s will be in wheel chairs, on
a d d r e s s e d separately. c r ut c h e s , or wearing
b r ac e s and those with
The f a c i l i t y should com h e a r i n g or sight i m p a i r
m u n i c a t e to children m e nt
that it is their special E n t r y / e x i t should p r o
place v i de s a fety for children
• Th e f a c i l i t y should com a r r i v i n g / d e p a r t i n g in
m u n i c a t e to parents and cars or buses or walking;
c o mm u n i t y that children v i s i b i l i t y into Interior
are v a l u e d u pon arri v a l ; a caver
o v e r the outside for in
c l e m e n t weather; im
m e d i a t e access to b u i l d
ing, e a si l y managed by
c h i l d r e n ; place for s i t
ting n e a r entrance; d i s
play s u rfaces for parent
c o m m u n i c a t i o n and
c h i l d r e n ' s work
S t o r a g e for wraps and
personal belongings
sh ou l d be easily a v a i l
a b le to children for
a r r i v a l / d e p a r t u r e and for
use of outs i d e center
25
Storage for wraps and
personal belongings for
20-25 children, with room
to dress/undress (coats,
sweaters, boots) without
hindering or being hinder
ed by others and designed
to consider user's size
and coordination skills
Spaces should exist, or be
able to be created with
minimum effort, for groups
of 20-25 engaged in both
passive and active pur
suits, i.e., stories,
movies, games, music.
Spaces should provide for
visual and thermal comfort
to allow group to give
attentive concentration
to activities
The facility should con
tain well-defined, varied
storage solutions which
are convenient and suppor
tive and sufficient in
number for materials and
equipment (pp. SO to 58)
Oesign must allow for
visual monitoring of ac
tivities by adults with a
minimum amount of moving
from area to araea
Provision for use of
teaching machines (pp. 54-
58) in a safe situation
should be made available
to the large group area
Arrangement should allow
free flow of users
through the area and aid
in: nrfTrla
observation for de
cision making
movement without
interference in
center activities
efficient movement
from one activity to
another
is ta j
26
Natural ventilation pro
vision should exist
Toilet facilities should
be:
• located to allow for
ease of use/mon1tor1ng
from all parts of the
learning environment -
Inside and outside
• conducive to self-care
• physically and visu
ally accessible from
inside and outside
learning spaces
• separated from hand
washing spaces
• scaled to child
• easily sanitized
Separate restroom facili
ties, Immediately adjacent
to Inside learning area,
should exist for adults,
appropriately scaled and
furnished with storage and
a mirror
Sinks for clean-up of self
and room, and water play
should:
be two or three in
number to handle needs -
one sink for each 3 to
10 children
be located near toilet
area
be scaled for children
have a mirror above for
child use, with bright
light
have storage for adult
and child use and work
surface for mixing,
cleaning, water play
have warm and cold water
(with warm water temper
ature control device at
adult level)
• be easily cleaned
F have towels con
veniently located with
consideration of child
scale and total area
L_. design
have additional sink
for adult use
27
Special Consid e r at i o n s for facility, with co ve r over
Full - d a y Programs: pathway for inclement
weather
Lunch is d e si rably eaten
in a variety of small Rest/nap time provisions:
group settings within the
facility at a m i d- p o i n t • 20 to 2S separated
in the day's time places where cots/mats
schedule - considerations can be placed to allow
for this include: for undisturbed r e s t
ing
• adequate satellite • circulation “paths"
servi ce while resting
• adequate serving and • warm floors If mats
clean-up provision are used
• adequate eating places • control of light, o u t
• Lunch eaten in school side noise inte r
cafeteria requires c o n ference
sideration of safe, c o n Relationship of f a cility
venient access to that to rest of campus
r
28
160
• The facility should re • separate area con

flect maximum space trols
usage. Total cubic foot • controls within
age should be used, not child's reach
just floor area • natural light in
Choice of materials, major portion of
finishes and color should facility
relate to stimulation of • adequate outdoor
senses of users, activi illumination for
ties of users, facility night use of faci 1 ity
of maintenance and sup
port of educational ob Electric supply should
jectives and serve as a allow for multiple use of
background for the all electric equipment in
children and their work a safe manner
• Location of electrical
These Spaces Should Exist outlets should offer m a x i
Adjacent to Learning Spaces: mum flexibility for use of
equipment in all centers
Informal and comfortable and number
conference spaces for 3 Sound control considera
to 8 people (students, tions should be made
teachers, parents and concerning:
aids) • creation of different
Teacher work spaces which sound levels and moods
are accoustically and • conversation/listening
visually private, provide sounds
adequate space for work, • Impact noises
relaxation and contempla • activity/noise level
tion and supportive within a center
spaces for machines and Heating/air conditioning
materials (p. 58) s hould:
A separate provision for
cooking activities, ad • be energy efficient
jacent to general area, ■ be located for a-
should provide two levels voidance of noise
of cabinet work space disturbance
scaled respectively to • control drafts/dead
adult and child, a cook air spots
ing surface and oven • afford comfortable use
scaled for optimum child of total cubic space -
use and a refrigerator floor to ceiling
suitable in capacity to
store foodstuffs for cook
ing experiences for 20-25
children
Illumination of the fa
cility should provide
adequate overall light
with attention to:
■ task illumination -
horizontal and verti
cal adjustability
29
1o1.
IS
BLOCKS
ji
MUSIC
SIM s
READING
LEA R N IN G CENTERS
162
Art
Th e art c e n t e r provides o p p o r
tunities for Important c r e a
tive a c t i v i t y and self-
s a ti s f a c ti o n . It allows y o u n g
children to express ideas and
f e elings through the use of
u n s t r u c t u r e d mate r i a l s and r e
lated tools. It gives them
free d o m f o r m aking decisions
and choices and sharing in the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the care of
equi p m e n t, materials and their
w ork area. It affords them
repeated oppo r t u n it i e s for r e
fining d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and
small m o t o r skills ,(Materials
and Equipment - p. 50).
• S p a c e which allows
c h i l d r e n room to create,
e x p e r i m e n t and enjoy using
a w i d e variety of media
• V i e w of e x terior
■ L i g h t which allows for
e a sy disti n g u is h i n g of
c o l o r and texture of m a
terials with some natural
light
W a t e r immediately a c c e s s i
ble to area and water f i x
tures easily operated by
c h il d r e n , with toweling in
e asy reach
S ink and work counters at
c h il d r e n ' s optimum s t a n d
ing w o rk level
Mirror
Wall, work and floor s u r
faces impervious to art
m a te r i a l s and water and
e a s i l y cleaned by children
Storage, easily accessible
to children, for all ma
terials and equipment .in use
Concealed storage, at adult
level, in or nearby, for
additional supplies.
31
163
S p ac e s for on-going p r o
j e c t storage and drying in
area, at least a portion
w i t h i n children's reach
Fl at and t h re e - d i m e n s i o n
al d isplay surfaces w i t h
in children's reach and
o p t i m u m viewing range
Vertical painting sur
f aces for 4 to 6 children
H orizontal painting and
wo r k surfaces for 4 to 6
chil d r e n
C o u n t e r at teacher work
1 evel
A b i l i t y to work without
i n t e r f e r en c e from c i r c u
l a ti o n and surrounding
acti viti es
Blocks These block areas are also
rich in opportunities for
language development at the
Blocks are both fascinating peer interaction level and the
and challenging, and their adult/child level. Indis
inherent values are numerous. pensable to block activity is
Children are artists, scien a comprehensive collection of
tists, dramatists, workmen, accessories, which can en
group members, mathematicians courage and enrich.
or geographers as they use
body and mind in working with
this unstructured material. Hollow Blocks
Building with blocks in
trigues and challenges, thus • Locate in close proximity
the kindergarten classroom to housekeeping area so
should have available both role play can extend from
hollow blocks, which allows one area to the other
the child to put himself into with ease
his structure, and unit Easily visible for op
blocks which open avenues for timum adult supervision
beginning concepts of balance, Floor covering which
space, equivalency, causation, offers noise absorptive
serlatlon, number, set, part/ quality and is firm for
whole, enclosure, categoriza balanced constructions
tion and classification (Ma • Hall finish resistent to
terials and Equipment - p. 51). impact damage
Locate away from quieter
areas such as the library
Floor space allows far
ordered, uncrowded stor
age that invites use and
is easily accessible to
ch11dren
Space which allows for
complex constructions
• Ability to open space for
use with adjacent area
Adjustable storage within
the area for accessories,
easily accessible to
children
Vertical display surfaces
at optimum viewing level
for children which will
accommodate books as well
as teaching pictures,
's*w charts and signs
33
165
Ceiling offers ability to Storage should be easily

suspend lightweight items accessible to children
Area protected from traf Additional adjacent s t o r
fic flow thus affording age for accessories in
safety both to workers use easily accessible to
and n o n-involved persons children and offering
f 1e x i b i 1 ity for wide
Unit Blocks variation of materials
S torage for accessories
Located near the science not in use should be at
center so that experi adult accessible level
mentation and observation and convenient to area
opportunities can occur Generous work space with
with ease the capability of c o n
Vertical display surfaces figuration and size
at o p timum viewing level change in activity and
for children which will group size
accommodate books as well Flooring is flat,
as teaching pictures, thermally comfortable
charts and signs and offers noise a b s o r p
Easily movable storage in tiveness
which blocks can be plac Traffic flow around area
ed, uncrowded, according allows uninterrupted work
to shape/size
34
166
Immediately adjacent to
Housekeeping (Home) hollow block area to a l
low for ease of m o v e m e n t
C hildren organize what they between areas as d i c t a
see and hear in everyday life, ted by activities
interpreting and wrestling Space which allows for
with ideas and problems. Th ey a r ra n g i n g/rearranging of
imitate the actions and furniture as area b e
c h ar a c t e r traits of those a- comes one/several rooms,
round them in the context of home/store/offi ce/school
play. Thus they begin l e a r n Careful cons i d e r at i o n of
ing to understand themselves dimensions of home c e nter
and others and begin gaining furnishings when p lanning
c o nfidence in their abilities permanently placed f i x
to work with others. E s tures
sential to meaningful ‘i n v o l v e Full length m irror
m ent is the provision of a Open, inviting wall and
v ari e t y of materials as floor finishes and colors
"props" to stimulate i m a g i n a Ability to use area o c
tion and aid in broadening of casionally for cooking
concepts (Materials and equip projects
ment, p. 53).
• Multiple electric outlets
for safe use of h o t
plates, vacuum cleaner,
viewing machines, sewing
machine, and various
electric food preparation
machines
• Mater easily accessible
for ease of use in play/
cleanup/cooking
• Wall surfaces which e n
able varied placement of
pictures, curtains and
other "props"
Adult-accessible storage
within or near area for
equipment, accessories
and "prop" boxes not 1n
use
Storage for equipment,
accessories and “prop"
boxes currently 1n use
which considers places
for hanging and open and
closed flat storage and
is visually and p h y s i
cally conducive to m a x i
mum child use
36
introduced to verbal c o m m u n i
Library - c ation when they are s p ok e n to
by their parents and o t h e r s in
Communication Skills their environment. They s l o w
ly acquire the ability to use
Th e a b il ities to control s peech in expressing t h e i r own
l a n g u a g e and communicate help thoughts and become aware of
d e te r m i n e a child's success in language in its written form
school and his ability to in their environments thro u g h
f u nc t i o n as a productive m e m b ooks, newspapers and m a g a
be r of society. This 1s a zines, labels, signs and t e l e
time of rapid intellectual vision. Five-year-olds are at
growth, immense curiosity and an ideal time in life for
c o n s t a n t acquisition of k now m a st ering language syst e m s and
ledge and refinement of developing language facility.
skill. Children are first Me faster children's l a n g u a g e
development most when we e n
co urage active, c onstant
practice in meaningful i n t e r
action. The library c e n t e r
s h ould be a supportive e n
v ironment which not o nly a l
lows but encourages, personal
Involvement on a high level of
frequency and should c o n t a i n a
we al t h of m u lt i - l e ve l e d m a
terials. Here the child
s h ould feel free to browse,
tell, listen, dramatize, read
and write or dictate. 3ooks,
signs and other written m a t t e r
should not be exclusive to the
library - related m a t e r i a l s of
this nature should be f o u n d in
leach area. (Materials and equip
ment, p. 54).
37
Ability to adapt area, or viewing of projected
portion of area, for pictures
dramatization of stories Safe, conveniently located,
or life events electric outlets for
Places for quiet, indi machines (p. 53)
vidual activity Listening station witn
Places which encourage headphones for 6-3
lounging children is furnished
Comfortable seating for with surface for using
child, adult, child/ related books and offers
child, child/adult comfortable seating
Ability to adapt a por
tion of the area for use
as a puppet theater (or
space which allows for
use of portable puppet
stage)
Arrangement allows t each
er to function as a
language experience re
source and yet maintain
contact with other areas
■ Area should possess some
auditory screen, visual
screen for seated children
and protection from g e n e r
al room activities and
traffic flow
Vertical display surfaces,
flat and three-dimensional,
Adjustable storage easily for books, charts, pictures
visible and accessible to and real objects at optimum
children, immediately ad viewing level
jacent to places of use Variety of horizontal s u r
for storage of: faces for reading, writing,
• puppets drawing and games
• tapes/books
• drawing/writing m a
terials
• games, books and real
• objects
Space where large story
charts can be used by a
child or small group of
children (6-8)
Area needs to afford
adult access/visibility
to facilitate maximum use
of time
Task lighting in areas
used for books, drawing,
writing and games
Vertical surface within
area suitable for easy
38
Manipulative ments which offer inviting
choices for working with
materials
A lthough numerous m a nipulative Flexible space which a l
materials will be found in lows individuals and
centers throughout the faci l i small groups of 2 to 4 to
ty, there are some which seem work w ithout interfering
to function best in an area with others or blocking
set aside for this discrete accessibility of storage/
purpose. Concepts are formed, display area
e ye-hand coordination d e ve l o p Task lighting
ed, visual discrimi nation is Storage wnlcn allows m a
refined, relationships are ex terials to be displayed
plored and problem solving is for ease of use in a
b egun here. Children work manner which promotes re
individually and in groups of turn to “place"
two, three or four in a quiet, Three-dimensional display
contemplative a tmosphere (Ma surfaces for "con s t r u c
terials and equipment, p. 55). tions"
Protection from c i r c u l a
A variety of work s u r tion within the area and
faces and seating a r ra n g e between it and other
areas
9
0
c»
O
Q
BP3BF='
jtttwiiar i____
9 0 0
. 'MTojW-
39
171
Music Music can aid in d i s c r i m i n a

tion, promote cooperative work
with others and increase self-
Singing and responding to confidence through self-
music are natural ways for expression. Children should
children to express many of be helped in learning the joys
their ideas, experiences and music can afford them and
feelings. This interest teachers need to be aware of
needs to be nourished with its ability to reflect and
provision of a good basic alter mood. At times, tne use
assortment of rnythm instru of props such as scarves aid
ments, quality recordings of in m a king the child less in
a wide vari e t y of instru h ibited and lend in giving him
mental and vocal music and a better sense of balance
ample time and space for (Materials and equipment, p. 55).
thei r use. Chi 1d r e n 's
language de ve l o p m en t is
greatly e n h a n c e d through Storage which displays
singing. Music can also be a musical instruments in an
pleasurable means of refining easily visible and a c
large ano small motor skills. cessible manner and in-
40
172
vites use and care of

these instruments by the
chi 1dren
W ork surfaces which aid
in proper use of musical
instruments
Location based on considera
tion of noise level inherent
in use of musical instruments
Special sound-absorptive
treatment
Placement of record p lay
er and cassette player/
tape-recorder for optimum
use by 6 to 8 students,
with appropriate, com
fortable seating
Storage for records and
cassette tapes in a pr o
tected area which is
easily accessible to
children
Space which allows for
gross body movements in
rhythmic response to
music
Space to normally serve
S to 3 children, but
having the ability to be
enlarged to create space
for total group use (20-25
children)
Display surfaces for p i c
tures, charts and books
related to music
Storage immediately vi si
ble and accessible to
children for scarves,
streamers, etc. used in
free movement
Storage in or near the
area, for adult use, for
additonal records, cas
sette tapes and other re
lated materials
41
Outdoor
The outside learning area

should be an extension of the
inside of the physical plant,
y e t many times it is a n e g l e c
ted, ill prepared and little
utilized space. The outd o o r
c enter should be designed to
accommodate many forms of
activity: simple to gross
motor actions; organized
games; dramatization of real
and imaginary events; s c i e n t i
fic observation and e x p e r i
mentation. The layout and
equipment should encourage
activity, stimulate t*<e
senses, nurture curiosity and
allow for a variety of child/
^ child and child/adult inter-
actions. A safe, easily used,
S L »f r e e - fl o w transition area will
' f a c i l i t a t e maximum use of the
total environment (Materials
and equipment, p. 56).
A hard-surfaced area and

a grassy area, both large
enough for organized
games
A network of paths c o n
nected to the hard-
surfaced area to support
use of wheeled toys
Sand and sand equipment
Mound(s) of earth for
climbing and digging
Oramatic play structures
(play house, old car or
boat)
Equipment far active play
which is appropriate in
size, requires different
levels of skill. and sup
ports involvement of
several children si mu l
taneously
Private spaces at child
scale
Functional physical
boundaries which provide
security and learning op-
portuni ties
• Natural area which a t
tracts birds and insects
• Protected gardening
spaces easily tended by
children
Housing for pets - p r o
tected from weather and
from possible harm from
outsiders (human and
animal)
• A covered transitional
space for ease of m o v e
ment and inclement w e a
ther use
• Lockable, protected,
easily accessible s t o r
age for outside equipment
and accessories
• Easy access to wraps,
toilets and water fo un
tains
Sunny and shady areas and
places for sitting
• Hater play area
Construction area for
large scale projects
Stationary equipment se
cure 1n ground and any
concrete footings rece s
sed in the ground
Area under all climbing
and moving equipment
cushioned with appropria
te material at optimum
depth and of optimum
size
Variety in levels of ter-
rai n
Excellent drainage
43
175
Science Multiple safe sources of

electricity for machines
and equipment wh ic h will
The curiosity of young be in on-going and p e r i o
children produces active use dic use
of the science center. Here Visible and physical
they can experiment, observe, access to outside for
question and evaluate - using maximum observation of
their senses to the fullest. nature and for nature r e
Children learn as they inte r lated activities
act with their environment, Spaces where habitats for
and there is no substitute animals may periodically
for first hand experience. and permanently exist
Basic concepts in both science Water easily acce s s i b le
and math can be developed, in to children
qu ir y and problem solving
skills pursued and self-
direction and responsibility
practiced. (Materials and
equipment, p. 57).
Flat and three d i me n s i o n

al display surfaces for
relevant books, pictures,
charts and concrete o b
jects with display s u r
face viewable from all
sides
Variety of ample one-
person and small grouo
work surfaces for use of
equipment and materials
at various work levels
(floor, sitting, and
standing)
Variety of seating which
is comfortable and child
proportioned
Closed storage within, or
near, for adult use in
storing equipment and
materials not in current
use
Open storage, flexible
and child accessible, for
equipment and materials
available but not in
immediate use
Good direct light for o p
timum observation, e x
perimentation and use of
equipment
Natural light for plants
44
Outdoor provisions for
gardening and animals and
nature-watching within
eyeview of interior
Work, floor and wall s u r
faces resistant to water,
dirt, and experimental
"messes" and which are
easily cleaned by children
Space for sand/water table
within this center fraay
also periodically be l o ca
ted in art center and o u t
door center)
Vertical writing surface
at optimum level for
children's use
Flexibility which allows
change in size or c o n
figuration of area
Area undisturbed by t r af
fic. flow and surrounding
acti vi ty
AS
Work surface at height
W o o d w o r k in g conducive for competent
use of drill and other
tool s
Wo rking with wood and tools Work space where 1 to 5
offers opportunities for children can conveniently
d eveloping cognitive, large and safely work with wood
m o t o r and small motor and tools
skills, helps build c o n f i Situated in an area
dence and creativity, p r o easily supervised, v i s u a l
vides experience in sharing ly and physically, by
and gives the user a le gi adul t
timate way of making noise Area undisturbed by t r a f
(Materials and equipment, p. fic
58) •
Horizontal work surface
at optimum work height
for children when s t a n d
ing
Provision of task l i g h t
ing over work surface for
safety
c
46
Hanging storage for tools
which is safe, easily
visible and immediately
accessible to children
Safe storage for nails,
screws, lumber and other
building items immediate
ly accessible to children
Storage for on-going pro
jects accessible to
F IR children
Olsplay surfaces for re
lated books, pictures and
I'll* finished projects
Location of center within
M l' the learning area considers
the inherent noise level
of center activities
Wall, floor and work sur
faces resistant to damage
resulting from abrasion
J—^ y -■ -<b - from wood, nails, etc.,
easily cleaned and having
maximum sound absorptive
ness
*7
Learning Center Relationships
Large blocks
Small blocks
Manipulative
Q High
i~xl Moderate
F I Some
I I None
E.g., Art Center and Woodwork Center! * I- high degree
of relationship between activities within
Large Blocks Center and Manipulative Center Q - no
relationship
ISO
M ATERIALS AND
E Q U IPM E N T
181
Consumable Materials fabric scraps, ribbons,

feathers, dried beans,
and Equipment for Art grasses . . . . .
Needles • tapestry, medium to
Center large; plastic (yarn)
Yarns - rug, knitting, novelty
Thread - crochet and embroi
Tempera Paint - 6"h, 4 “ diam. dery
Easel Brushes - 1/2", 3/4", Wire, string, chenille sticks,
1", with 12“ handles pipe cleaners and rubber
Easel - 20“w x 25“h, 28“ from bands
fl oor Toothpicks, tongue depressors
Spatter Screen • wooden frame and bits of balsam
18“1 x 12“w x 1“h Sequins, buttons, cotton
Finger Paint - 5“h x 4 “ diam. balls, macaroni, styrofoam
Markers - water soluble bits __
Chalk - yellow, white, color Storage Boxes • clear plastic
ed and large chunk colored to house collections -
Crayons - large, non-roll; 24 12 1/2"! x 7 3 / 4 “w x 5 l/4“h
color assorted box (shoe boxes • but unable to
Pencils - primary writing and see contents easily)
colored drawing Sand/water Table - plastic or
Play Tray - 23“ sq. x 2“d metal lined, portable with
Scissors - 4 l/2“w x 7“1 cover - 48“ 1 x 2 2 “w x 6 “d.
Glue - gallon, lT'h x 6 “ sq.; 2 4“ from floor
hand bottle - 5 3/4“h x 8eans, peas, sand, potting
2 1/2“ h x 1 l/4"d; rubber soil - for use in table
cement - 4 “h x 2 “ diam. Measuring cups - set dry, wet
Paper - construction, news measures - 1C and 2C
print, special, manilla, Sifter, hand shovel, sand
tissue, fingerpaint, rolls rakes, funnel, water wheel -
of colored and brown w rap for sand and water play
ping - 9 “ x 12“ , 12“ x 18“ , Cover-ups - shirts or aprons
18" x 24“ to protect clothes when
Wheat Paste - 6"h x 4"w x 2 “d using “messy1' materials
Stamp Pads - 3/4"h x 4 1/2"! Sponges - 4 “ x 6 “ for clean
x 3 l/4“w up; varied shapes and sizes
Ink - 2 “h x T'w sq. for printing
T emplates Bucket - 8"h x 8" diam. (from
Rulers, yard sticks and tri paint store)
angles S m al 1 mop - 29" handle
Stapler - 6 “1 x 1 l/2“w x 2 “h
Hole Punch - 5"1 x 2 l/2"w
Tape - cellophane, colored
plastic and masking - 2 “
diam., 4 “ diam.
Clay - 1/2 gal., 2 g a l .
Clay Boards - 12" sq. x l/4"h
Clay Tools - rollers, cutters,
orange sticks and spatula
Play Dough - ingredients for
homemade (plus tools)
Collage Materials - yarns,
50
182
Blocks and Accessories •roof board

large arch & half
for Block Center circle
Hollow block accessories
Giant tinkertoys
Hollow Blocks - sufficient Ride-on vehicle and compo
number to effectively create nents - base - 22" x 4" x
a variety of constructions. 11"; 1-arch; 2-large cylin
Full set preferable, half ders; 6-units; 10-double
set e s s e n t i a l . uni ts
24 - squares - 5 1/2" x 11" •Large truck - 26"! x 8"w x
x 11“ 1Z"h
12 - double squares - 5 1/2" •Riding tractor I wagon -
x 11" x 22" 48"1 x 9 “w x 12"h
12 - half squares - 5 1/2" x •Crane - 33"1 x 10"w x 20"h
5 1/2“ x 11“ Wheelbarrow - 5" wheel,
12 - half double squares - 42 "1
5 1/2" x 5 1/2" x 22" Airplane - ride-on - 29"1
4 - ramps - 5 1/2" x 11" x x 30 “w x 10"h
22" Train - ride-on - 72" 1 x
8 - short boards - 5 1/2" x 7 3/4“w x 9 3/4“h
3/4" x 22"
8 - long boards - 5 1/2" x * - Also useable with unit
3/4“ x 44“ blocks
Unit Blocks - based on multi Doll wagon - 19"1 x 10"w x 23"
ples or divisions of the to handle
basic 1 1/2" x 2 3/4" x Mounted steering wheel
5 1/2". *Intermeaiate Miscellaneous hats
unit - 19 shapes/186 pieces Life jacket and oars
and Advanced unit (prefer Traffic signs - 30"h - set-6
able) - 27 shapes/396 pieces Cash register - 7" x 7" x 7"
•half unit Carpet squares
•uni t Old sheets, blankets and
•double unit spreads
•quadruple unit Ropes and pulleys
•half pillar Large styrofoam packing
•pi liar pieces and mailing tubes
double pillar Unit Block Accessories
•s ma l 1 triangular Animals - rubber - 6 1 /2"h
pri sm wood - 10“h
•medium triangular People - wood - community
pri sm people and family members
•smal1 c y 1i nder 8" adult (also 5"h group)
•ramp pliable family - 4"-7 3/4"
•curve Boats - wood - floor toys -
•1/4 ci rcle pri sm interlocking barge - 4
large switch components - 6" each
gotnic door ferry - 18"1 x 7"w x 6 1/2"h
smal 1 switch Transfer truck - 25"1 x 8"w x
large buttress 6 3/4"h
•1/2 arch Bulldozer - 11 1/2“1 x 5"w x
•small buttress 5 1 / 2" h
•arch & 1/2 circle Cars - variety - approx.
12 1/2"! x 4 1 /2“w x 4 1/2"h
51
Jet airplane - 18"! with 14"
wingspan
Skaneateles Train - straight
track - 4 each of S “ and 9 “
curved track - 12-7" pieces
spur and socket fillers - 2
each - 4 3/4"
switches - 2-6" each
ramps - 3 “ each
double socket and spur - 4
6 “ each
cars - 6-2 1/2" each
Ooll House - 4 modular rooms -
flat and peaked roofs -
15 3/4w x 11 3/4" each
module
Doll House Furniture - sofa
6 1/4"! x 2 “h x 2 3/8“d;
other pieces proportional -
6 sets available (4 to 8
pieces each)
Materials and Equipment and ink pad, blue jacket;
gas station - workclothes,
for Housekeeping Center hats, empty oil can, hose
or tubing, paper towels and
spray bottle, car jack and
Telephones - real-set to oper lug wrench, tire gauge and
ate within environment (if pump, old rags, dip stick
possible) also play models Broom and mop - 28"! handles
Cash register - 7" x 7" x 7 “ Oustpan - rv.bber edge
Pots and pans - for play-real, Clocks, radio, camera, binocu
small scale lars, lunch box, small suit
Pots and pans - for classroom case.....
cooking - sauce pan with Table - 2 8 “ diam. and four
lid, double boiler (glass chairs - 10.5"h to lT'h,
will allow viewing), muffin seat
tins - regular and minia Stove - 2 4 “w x 12"d x 26"h
ture size - cookie sheets, Refrigerator - 1 8 % x 12”d x
loaf pans, cake pans, pie 36 "h
tins, skillet (medium plus Cabinet/sink - 2 4 % x 12“ d x
electric) 2611h
Additional kitchen equipment - Cupboard - 1 3 % x 12"d x 38“b
measuring spoons, measuring Bed - 31" 1 x 1 6 % x 9 “h
cups - dry and liquid in 1C Rocking chair - 11 '•h , seat
and 2C sizes, wooden mixing Chest of drawers - 1 8 % x 12"d
spoons, ladle, colander, x 24"h
can opener, funnel, sifter, High chair - 9 “ x 9 “ x 2 9 “h
cookie cutters, mixing ( 1 6 % seat)
bowls in graduated sizes, Full length mirror - p refer
rolling pin, potato peelers, ably free-standing - 48''h x
paring knives, melon bailer, 1 2 % x 4" deep stand
grater Ironing board - 24"1 x 3 % x
Real dishes, silverware, mats, 24" h
flower containers Iron - wooden - 7"! x 3 % x
Dolls - representative of all 5" h
ethnic groups - 13" and Doll buggy (carriage) - w o od
20" - w ashable en (holds child) - 2 4 “1 x
Baby bathtub + wash cloths and 1 3 % x 24" to handle
towels
Clothes line and pins • push •Somewhere in complex -
and clip Standard oven - at optimum
Role play clothes - male and level for child use
female; everyday plus jab/ Refrigerator - small capacity
activity related, seasonal Stove top - counter set - at
related; accessories, i.e., optimum level for child
jewelry, wallets, watches
Role play suoport - “ prop"
boxes - collections in box
ed sets which support a
concept - i.e., post of
fice - old shoulder strap
purses, envelopes, old
stamps, paper, play money,
postal scale, hat or pattern
to make one, rubber stamps
53
Materials and Equipment Telephones - real, set to
operate within the e nviron
for Library - ment if possible, also play
model s
Communication Center Puppets - hand, finger and
stick - 5 1/2" x 8 “ to 12"
x 18 “ and 1“ x 2"
Large story charts and books - Puppet theater - 2 ‘w by 8"d
24" x 26 ” floor models (each side) x 2'h opening,
Portable/lap writing surface - total height - 40"
chalkboard or comparable - Typewriter - 15 “w x 15"d x 6"h
9" x 12" Papers - for typing, writing
Flannel board stories and drawing - 3 1/2" x 11",
Flannel boards - large, 24" x 12" x 13", 18" x 2 4 “
36"; indiv i d u al , 9" x 12" Markers, crayons and pencils
3ooks - picture, poem, story, Games - 9" x 9", 9" x 12", 13"
nursery rhyme, easy reader - x 14", 3" x 5", 4 “ x 4 “
5 1/2" x 6 1/2", 6" x 8", Letters and numerals - wooden -
9 1/2” x 11" Charts - 17" x 22", 21" x 34",
Real objects - variety to d i s 31" x 34"
play for discussion and
creative writing
Picture collections - 10 1/4"
x 13 3/4", 12 1/2" x 17",
12 3/4" x 13 1/4", 13" x
18", 18 1/2" x 24 1/2"
Machines -
Listening station - ear
phones - 7" diam. - ear,
3"w between; component -
6 l/4"w x 5 3/4"d x 2 l/2“h
Cassette tape recorder/
player - 10 l/2"w x 8"d x
3"h
Film strip projector -
6 l/2“w x 17 1/2“d x 16"h
Overhead projector - 13 l/2"w
x 16 l/2"d x 26 3/4"h
Film looo projector - 11"w x
13 1/2”d x 16"h
Record player - 16" sq. x 9"h
Collections -
Records - 12" and 7“
Cassette Tapes - 4 1/4"1 x
2 3/4"w x l/2"d
Film strips - 1 l/2"h x
1 5/8" diam.
Bags - to store cassette tapes
and books, and filmstrips -
8" sq., 9 1/2" x 10“ , 10“ x
13 1/2"
Rack - to hang above bags -
30 l/2"w x 8 3/4"d x 17 l/2"h
54
Materials and Equipment Materials and Equipment
for Manipufative Center for Music Center
Large and small beads and Piano and bench
strings - 1" and 1/2“ Collection of song and rhythm
(plastic container - 8"h) - books - 5 1/2” x 6 1/2“ to
bead pattern cards - 4 1/2“ 9 1/2“ x 11"
x IT' Rhythm Instruments - for 25
Cubes - wooden, olastic and children -
design - with pattern cards rhythm sticks - 13“ smooth
Parquetry blocks and pat and 14“ ridged - 4 pair
terns - 14“ sq. 5" triangle with striker
Pegs and peg boards - 10Q and holder (or 6“ )
pegs, 3 / 1 6 “ x 2“ ; boards - wrist bells - four bells on
10" x 10“ 1“ webbing - 4
See-Quees Puzzles - 9 “ x 9 “ , small drum 7" diain., 2 1 / 2 "d
9 “ x 12", 13“ x 14“ 6 “ tambourine
Wooden puzzles • simple to maracas - 1 pair
complex - 9 1/2“ x 11“ , 12" finger cymbals - 1 set (4)
x 14 1/2"; Puzzle rack - sand blocks - 3“ x 5“ - 4
15“ x 12“ x 14'*h pair
Attribute blocks ankle bells - six bells on
Cuisinaire rods leather strap - 2
Dominoes - wooden - picture, tambourine sticks - 8 “ - 3
dot, color, texture crow sounder - 9 “
Lotto games soprano sounders - 8" - 4
Clocks - paper with movable claves - 9" x 1" - 1 pair
hands; stamps; geared model - Step bells -
15" x 15 3/4" x 3" Autoharp - 24“1 x 13 1 / 2 % x
Number sorter - 15“ 1 x 3 % x 4 1 / 4" h
3/ 8 "h Records - 7 “ and 12"
Wooden letters and numerals Cassette Tapes - 4 1/4" x
Developmental Learning M a 2 3/4" x 1/2"
terials (DIM) - boxed - Collection of scarves - bright
5 l/2"lx 3 l/2"w x 3"h and filmy
6 5 / 8 '*1 x 6 “w x 3 / 4" h Streamers of bright fabric or
15“1 x 9 l/2“w x l"h crepe paper
18 1/2“ 1 x 12 l/2“w x 1“h Sal 1oons
9 “sq. x 1 5/8"h Record player - 16" sq. x 9“ h
Lacing shoe - 7'M x 3 1 / 2 % x Cassette tape recorder/player -
5”h 10 1 / 2 % x 8 “d x 3"h
Small tinkertoys Gui tar
Large lego blocks
Interlocking plastic squares
Plastic or wooden nuts, bolts
and screws
Storage boxes for above -
clear plastic - 12 1/2"! x
7 3 / 4 % x 5 l/4"h
55
for Outdoor Center for Indoor Large Motor
Climbing structures with a Development
variety of entries, exits
and levels Hop Scotch - plastic sheet,
PI ayhouse 31" x 77"
Tunnels Bean Bag Board - 13"w x 23"h
Old vehicle wnich has been plus 12 bean bags, 3 each
made safe - car, boat, truck in four colors
Tires, crates, planks, bricks, Tumbling Mat - 4' x 8 ‘ (fold
wooden spools, rope, barrels in 2' sections)
Sawhorses - 18“h x 24" 1 and Balance 3oard - 10" x IS"; 2
2 4 " h x 24"1 person board - 15" x 24"
Wheeled toys Junior Gym - folding - 38" x
Irish mail - 29"1 x 18“w x 38" x 48“ h
19"h Versa-play - 2 board - 17" x
Tricycle - 16" seat height, 44", 17" x 36". 2 triangles
21" to 26” wheel dlara. with wheels, 1 without, 16
Wagon - 28 “1 x 13"w x 3 1 /4"d 1/2“ all sides
bed and 7" wheels Balance Beam - 6 11", 6' off
Wheelbarrow - 42“1 with S" floor, sides - 4"w x 2"w
wheels (two-wheeled) Walking Cylinders - made of
Scooter - 3 4 " 1 , 25"h handle PVC pipe, 5 ”h & 6 " h , 4"
Skates and small bicycle are di am.
desirable later in year
Traffic signs - 5 - 30“h
Balls - variety of sizes from
4" to 16”
Jump ropes - one person; three
persons
Garden tools - hoe, shovel and
rake of sturdy construction
for real work - 29" handles
Pails, shovels, sifters, molds,
trucks...for use in sand
Foxhole shovels
Bottles, funnels, cups, water
wheel, boats...for use in
water play
56
188
Materials and Equipment x 22"w x 6"d and 24" from

fl oor
for Science Center Small, lockable glass display
case for "specials"
Magnifying stool - 5 “ diam.
SIide projector - glass, 9" overall diam. -
Science puzzles - 9 1/2" x 11" 10 7/8" h
Science picture/story books - Mirrors - glass and polished
5 1/2" x 6 1/2" to 9 1/2" x metal
11“ Colored paddles - translucent
Charts and teaching pictures - plastic in primary colors
11" x 14" to 32" x 36" Magnets
Aqua r i u m - 20"1 x 10 3/4"w x bar - 6"! x 3/4"w x l/4"h
1 3“h horseshoe - 3"w x 3"h
Incubator.- 6 l/2“h x 7" diam. jumbo horseshoe - 6"h x
Hot plates - 2 - single - 12" 3 l/2“w x 3 / 4 'd
sq., 3"h ; thermostat Assortment of materials to use
Tumb l e r - 6"h x 6"w x 8 1/2"1 with magnets
Balance scale - 12 1/2"1 x Flashlights - penlight and
9 3/4 "w x 6"h regular
Primary scale - plastic with Batteries and accessories -
removable tubs wire, buzzers, bells, s w i t
B athroom scale ches
Ant Farm - 15”1 x 2"w x 10"h Pliable rubber or plastic
Small Animal Cage - 9"1 x 8"w tubing
x 1 3" h B a l 1oons
Habitrail - 19"1 x 10"w x 18"h Stethoscope
Insect Cage - 6"1 x 4 “w x 6 “h Flats and assorted sizes of
T e rr arium - 11"! x 6"w x 9 ”h pots
Thermometer - indoor/outdoor - P o t t i n g soil an d p l a n t f o o d
2 l/2"w x 10"h W a t e r i n g can
Compass Hand tools for gardening -
Locks and keys claw, trowel, clippers
Pulleys and ropes - assortment Garden tools - shovel, rake,
of sizes hoe - steel - 29" handles
Kaleidoscope Jars - quart, pint and baby
Prism - 5 3/4" 1 x 2 l/8"w x food
1 l/2"h Measures - cloth tape, 12"
Magnifying glass - hand - 3" rule, yardstick, metal tape,
and 4" diameters with 5" trundle wheel
handle Wheels - assorted
Small plastic tub - baby's Pump
bathtub excellent Funnels - graduated set
Plastic cars, trucks and boats,, Strainer, sieve, colander,
squeeze bottles and sink/ s i fter
float items Eggbeaters - rotary, wire -
Wa terproof smocks - terry plunge action, wire whip
clotn front, plastic backed
Scoops, shovels, "design
rakes," snells, sifter - for
use with sand
Sand/water/pi anting table -
plastic or metal 1 ined -
portable, with cover - 48"1
57
for Woodworking Center for Teacher Work Area
Workbench with vise - 42" 1 x Typewriter - !S''h x 15“w x
22"w x 25"h 1 S"d
Tools - real, NOT children's Duplicator - 31"! x 18*'w x
toys! Good quality! 18“h
back type saw • 12" laminator - 3 1 “d x 16“w x 17“h
crosscut saw - IS" Paper cutter - 9 l/2“h x
coping saw - 12“ 17 l/2“w x 2 3 "d
claw hammers - 2 - 7", 11“ Files -
tack hammer - 7" Teaching systems -
clamps - several C - 2“ -4" 2 4“ 1 x 12"w x 3 “d
screwdrivers 12-h x 2 0 % x 12 “d
regular - 2 - 7“ Poster board - colored paper
phillipshead - 7 1/2“ on roller
pliers - 7 1/2" Scissors - 10"!, stapler, hole
brace and bit - 6" to 8" punch, yard stick, ruler,
sweep, 1/4" and 1/2" bits marking pens, porter paints
plane - 7" block Work surface - 4'w x 6'1
tri-square - 6" Storage spaces for reference
metal tape, rulers and materials, additional clas s
yardstick room supplies, shared teac h
carpenters' penci 1 s ing materials and equipment
Containers of nails of various Comfortable seating for work
size and length aod lounging
Sandpaper - assorted textures First aid supplies
Varied lengths of soft p i n e
Miscellaneous assortment of
woods, moulding and mill
scrap
Short-handled brush and
small, rubber-edged dustpan
Trash can - plastic (NOT
metal)
Carpenters' aprons - 4 or 5
3ox for wood - on wheels -
42"! x 22"w x 8"d
58
Additional information plies and number of users
based on class size.
Which Might be Useful
The most substantial ec on o
mies are achieved through:
Accoustical Guide!ines were
developed by the Metropolitan Creative design
Toronto School Board, 1968. long-range planning for
Educational Soecifications maintenance and o p e r a
and User Requirements for tion
Elementary (<- 6 ) S c n o o l s . A match between the educa
Ryerson Press. tional curriculum and user
characteristics and the
Energy has been addressed in facility.
the booklet Energy Estimate
A n al y s i s . CRS Energy Task
rorce, Houston, Texas, 1978.
Construction indexes based on
statistical averages on a na
tional scale tnclude 8uildino
Building Efficiency
Construction Cost Data
puoiisned by Robert Snow Efficiency ratio of net to
Means Company of Quxbury, gross is based on the choice
M a s s . , and Dodge Construction of the quality level ratio in
System C o s t s . published by 5 ratio of assigned to u n a s
McGraw-Hill information signed areas.
Systems Company of New York.
Assigned areas - all the
life Cycle Cost Analysis : A spaces needed to support the
Guide ror Archi tects and Lire program.
C v c 1e Cost Anal vs is 2: Using
11 in Practice by Oavid 5T Unassigned areas - all other
HavTTand are publications of spaces such as circulation
the American Institute of areas, mechanical areas, t o i
Archi t e c t s . lets, janitor closets, u n a s
signed storage, wall and p a r
A classroom needs 1/3 to 1/2 titions.
more spaces than children in
order to adequately provide Quality ratios most commonly
for learning. found in education buildings
are:
Square rootage Considerations
- Outside area - 100 sq. ft. Excellent - 60/403
per cnild minimum. Inside - Moderate - 65/353
35 sq. ft. to SO sq. ft. per Economical - 57/333
child, exclusive of toilets,
wardrobes (cloakrooms) and If you use the net assignable
storage. TEA recommends a area estimate figure and
minimum of 40 to 45 sq. ft., divide it by the appropriate
exclusive of the same items. percentage from the quality
A better determiner would be ratio you have chosen, you
the centers and their space will arrive at the total
needs for equipment and sup gross area requirement.
59
Example: 6 0 / 4 0 r a tio •
60.000 net S.F. , 100,000
T5S gross S.r.
(Abstracted from Probletn
Se ek i n g : An architectural
Praaraminina Primer by William
Pena with William Caudi11 and
John Fockc. Boston: Cahners
Books International, 1977.)
Cost Estimate Analysis

A. Building Costs 200.000 S.F. at S32.00/S.F. S8.400.000
B. Fixed Equipment (8% of A) 312,000
C. Sits Oavaiopmant (15% ofAi 980.000
0. Toral Construction (A - B - Cl S7.872.000
Sita Acquisition/Demolition 300,000

F. Movaabla Equipment (8% of A) 512.000
G. Profassianal Faas (6% of D) 472J00
H. Continganciss (lOTeofO) 787.200
J. Administrstiv# Costs (ir.o fO ) 78,720
K. Total Budget Required (D & E thruJ) SI0,022^20
Source: Problem S e eking: An Architectural Programming

Primer by William Pena with William Caudill and John Focke.
Boston: Cahners Books International, 1977.
60
equipment and furniture items,
Cost Estimate Analysis but does not include opera
tional equipment (i.e., micro
scopes, library books, etc.,
A. Building C o s t : Includes purchased from operating
all costs or construction funds.
within five feet of the build G. F e e s : Costs of architec-
ing line; all items required tural and engineering services
by codes (fire extinguishers and of consultant fees.
cabinets, fire alarm systems, H C o n t i n g e n c y ; A percentage
etc.); and items normally of tne total construction cost
found in buildings regardless is included to serve as a
of type (drinking fountains). planning contingency, bidding
S. Fixed Equipment: Includes contingency, and construction
all equipment items which may reserve (change orders, etc.).
be installed before completion J . Administrative C o s t s ;
of the building and which are Items tne owner is responsible
a part of the construction for during the planning pro
contract, such as lockers, cess, i.e., legal fees, site
food service equipment, se survey, soil testing, insur
curity equipment, stage equip ance, material testing.
ment, stage lighting, etc. K. Total 8 u d g e t : This repre-
C. Site Development: In- sents the total budget requir
cludes all work required which ed to occupy the new facility
lies within the site boundary and/or renovated areas.
and five feet from the edge of NOTE: For those projects
the building, i.e., grading which require permanent and
and fill, fencing, electronic interim financing costs, the
perimeter system, roads and following control items can
parking, utilities, landscape be listed as separate items
development, athletic fields, under 11J “ :
walks, site lighting, street
furniture, site graphics, on
site sewage treatment plant,
unusual foundation conditions.
D. Total Construction: This
represents the total budget
for construction, usually the
contract documents base bid.
E . Site Acquisition and/or
D e molition: Money budgeted
for purchasing the project
site and/or demolition of
existing structures.
F. Movable Equipment: This
category includes all movable-
Source: Problem S e ek i n g : An Architectural Proorammino Primer

by William Pena with William Caudill and John Focke. Boston:
Cahners Books International, 1977.
61
Area Relationships
intry Wraps/
Cubbies
f Car/Bus
tOrive/Park
Inside
Learning
Center Outside
Learning
Center
Rest
Room
Rest of
Campus
(Neighborhood
Least
Some
Host
62
Water Accessibility
Science
Wat er
Least
Some
Most
63
195
Will some of the inside water

be heated?
_ _ Yes (controls for temper
H — [f ft— f?1 ature need to be set at
adult-reach level).
No.
^hmaS Go&f Where will inside water be
located?
_ _ Drinking fountains.
Near certain learning
centers.
Toilet areas.
In food preparation area.
Where will outside water be
w located?
Pipe with spigot near the
planting area.
_ _ Fountain in shaded area.
_ _ Hose bib on building near
grassy/planting areas.
Where will paints be mixed?
_ At a sink/cabinet near
the art center - child
height.
_ At a s1nk/cab1net near
Questions: the art center - adult
height.
Where will children wash hands
To assist you In making and face?
choices, to insure that what In a sink by the toilets.
is important to you will be In a centrally located,
present in y our facility. child-scaled sink/cabinet.
Where will children/adults get
WATER water for cleaning, for pets,
for watering plants?
How will wa te r (rain) be _ _ At sink near toilets.
carried off the building? At a centrally located,
Uncontrolled. child-scaled sink/cabinet.
Through gutters and down _ From the drinking f oun
spouts (transparent ones tain.
allow children to see the What kind of sink(s) do you
movement of the water). want?
Where will water (rain) go Porcelain.
when 1t reaches the ground? Stainless steel.
Soak in. W a l 1 hung.
Run off - in planned, Set in work counter at
visible channels (another child height.
learning lesson and use _ _ Separate sinks set into
ful in watering plants). work counters - scaled
If not planned, can erode for adults and children.
grounds. How many sinks do you want?
Underground drainage
pipes.
64
What accessories do you want How will you circulate the
at the sink area? heat?
Mirror over it - at Hot air.
child's viewing level. Ceiling registers.
_ Light above or beside. Floor registers.
Towel dispenser - within Hot water.
easy reach of children. Baseboard.
Storage beneath sink/ Floor.
counter. FTectrlc.
Storage above area. Wal1 p a n e l s .
Electric outlet above Ceiling panels.
counter. How wTTl you control it?
What kind of toilets will you Thermostats
use? Central
Floor mounted. Area
_ Wa l 1 hung. _ Keyed
Child scaled. User adjusted
Adult scaled. What 7uel will you use?
Where will toilets be located? Gas.
Away from work areas. ~ Oil.
Accessible from outside Electri c.
and inside. WiTT you filter the air?
One room with two or more Screens.
toilets. Filters in cool/heat
Toilets in separate rooms. systems.
Adjacent to sinks. What kind(s) of windows do
Near sinks. you want?
Toilet for adults near Glass.
(but removed from) work Plastic.
area. Sliding horizontal.
What do you want near toilet? Sliding vertical.
Wal1-mounted bar for Swinging from side.
handicapped. Fixed gl as s .
Open floor space for Single glaze.
handicapped. Qouble glaze.
Paper dispenser - located _ Aluminum frame.
within child's easy reach. Wood frame.
Storage for cleaning WiTT you try to utilize the
supplies. sun?
Vent-fan. Heat.
Light.
AIR
LIGHT
What cooling system will you
use? What is its source?
Central air conditioning. Natural.
Windows. Artificial.
Fans. Incandescent.
Some of each. Flourescent.
What kind of heating system Other.
will you use?
Radiant.
Convection.
65
How will you control it? WALLS
Natural.
Shades. What finish will they have?
Venetian blinds. Washable.
Draperies or curtains. Tackable.
A rti f i c i al . Sound absorptive.
Central control. Sound reflective.
Area controls. Variety of textures.
Individual fixture Damage resistant.
c ont r o l s . How will color be used?
Where will it be placed? Absorb light.
Restrooms. Ref1ect 1ight.
Closets/storerooms. As a background.
Halls. To teach.
Entrance. _ To give direction.
Inside. To enrich; nurture.
Outside.
Tn each learning center. FLOORS
For general use.
Task 1ighting. What level(s) will be used?
All flat.
ELECTRICITY Variation in level.
Kiva.
Source to facility? Raised platforms.
Overhead w i r e s . What activities will you
Underground cables. provide for?
Where does it go? Water play.
Light sources for work Painting.
(List those you desire - Cl a y .
number and type). Use of woodworking tools.
Outlets - provide for B1ockbui1di ng .
safe/convenient use of Reading, games - on floor.
a l 1 equi p m e n t . What finish (materials) will
Switches - within easy you use?
reacy of children. Carpet.
Some 3-way switches. Viny1 .
Area 1ighting Other.
(separately controlled).
Th er m o s t at s . CEILING
Other wire systems.
TV. What features will it have?
T e le p h o n e . Light reflective.
Lightni ng r ods. Variation in height.
Sound absorptive.
DIRT Means to support'suspended
dividers, teaching items -
How keep out? 1 to 5 lbs.
Fi1t e rs . Means to support suspended
Mats outside doorways. climbing apparatus 50 to
Entry a r e a . 150 lbs.
How remove?
Mops. BUILDING STYLE
Carpet sweeper.
Vacuums. Functional (no preference)
Sponges. To conform with other
66
198
structures in vicinity. Personal hygiene.

To blend with other Contemplate.
structures in vicinity. Eat (snack; lunch).
Other. Rest (relax).
Conference.
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION Children.
~ Aide.
Remodel. Parents.
New. Others.
Attached.
Separate. ChiIdren
Temporary.
Permanent. Who and how many?
Average (normal).
ACTIVITIES Handicapped (how?)
(deaf, non-English speak
Adults ing, palsied).
What do they do?
Who and how many? Move about facility.
Teacher. Sit (where; on what?).
Aide. Build; construct.
Parent. Experiment.
Volunteer. Draw; paint; write.
Other (student teacher, ob Listen.
server, special teacher). Teacher; peers; others.
What do they do? Records; tapes.
Teach. Petri eve/store materials.
Oidatlc. Care for plants/animals.
Resource person. Care for learning environ
Coordi n a t o r . ment .
_ Hove from group to group Care for personal belong
(children stationary). ings.
Stationary (children move). Look/read book s .
Move about questioning, co Climb.
ordinating, challenging Run; skip; jump.
(children move also). Sing/dance.
Sit to work, confer, play Use balls (throw, kick,
musical instrument(s). catch, bounce).
Where/on what? _ Ride.
PTan, record, report. Tricycle.
~ Pile. Scooter.
Handle money. Irish m a i l .
Assist children. Other.
With personal hygiene. 5Tg; plant; weed.
With clothing. Skate.
With use of learning Group games.
materi a l s . 3-10 children.
With use of learning 10-20 chi 1dr en .
machines.
With care of pets/plants. TEACHING/LEARNING MATERIALS
With care of facility.
Exchange ideas, feelings. What is done with them?
Play g a m e s . Look at.
Additional activities. Sort.
Store personal things. Listen.
67
PI an w i t h / o n . Counter-set burners.
Act upon. Oven.
Re-arrange. Hot plate.
Write on. Electrical appliances.
Read.
Di s p l a y . RELATIONSHIPS
Store.
Throw away. How does the building support
the activities and needs of the
How are they used? users?
A1one. Spaces for all intended
In small groups. activities.
In large groups. Ability to use without
Where are they used? physical or psychological
Inside. constrai n t .
Outside. Provision for easy m o v e
On horizontal surfaces. ment and visual monitoring
On vertical surfaces. between interior and ex
Where will they be stored? terior.
Shelves. Space designed for inten
Permanent. ded number of users (i.e.,
Temporary. 20 ).
Fixed. How will you communicate be
Adjustable. tween this area and the rest of
CTbinets. the school (i.e., nurse, o f
Closets. fice, cafeteria)?
Boxes. Adjacent.
Racks. Covered access walk.
Hooks. Telephone.
Intercom.
(What things need closed
storage spaces? What things AUTOMOBILES/BUSES
need a locked storage area?
What things need to be access- How arrive/depart?
able only to adults; what Driveway.
things need to be within the Parking lot.
child's accessibility range?) Street.
Where arrive/depart?
FOOD At main entrance.
At entrance to K facility.
When w i 11 i t be used? Curb-side (undesirable).
Snacks. How will you get to them?
Breakfast. Under covered walkway to
Lunch. main entrance.
Learning situations. Through door to facility
Where will it be stored? and under covered entrance
Refrigerator. area.
Cabinets. Under covered walkway to
A d u 1t 1e v e l . covered waiting area.
Child level .
Portable serving racks. USE OF FACILITY
How wTTl it be used?
Cleaned/prepared (un Spaces planned for?
cooked ). One (more) now.
Cooked. Others in future (plans
68
200
allow for additions). When does summer weather cease?

Morning and afternoon ses Sept.
sions. _ Oct.
— i«•»~ j e s s tgn«
After-school care (Latch Key
or similar program.
Special classes (Community
Ed.).
Evenings.
Weekends.
fummer classes.
FOCUS
Where do you want the children's
attention directed?
Teacher (other adults).
Materials/equipment.
Peers.
Physical elements of the
bu1lding.
WEATHER
What 1s your fall like?
Hot.
_ Mild.
Rain.
_ Wind.
Long.
Short.
What is your winter like?
Seldom freezes.
Freezes in January and
Fe br u a r y .
Low temperatures from
October until April.
Other.
Wind.
Rain.
Snow.
Other.
What is your spring like?
Early and mi 1d.
Late.
Rain.
Wind.
Sun/clear.
When does summer weather
arrive (80*+)?
Apri 1.
May.
June.
69
201
REFERENCES
Beauregard, S., Magnuson, C. and Roberts, P.: Space: How much

is enough? Austin: Texas Department of Human Resources,
1978.
Davidson, T. and Steely, J.: Using learning centers with not
yet readers. Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company,
Inc., 1978.
Hirsch, E. S. (Ed.): The block book. Washington, O.C.:
National Association for the Education of Young Children,
1976.
H y m e s , J. L.: Teaching the child under six. Columbus: Charles
E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1974.
Krltchevsky, S., Prescott, E. and Walling, L.: Planning e n
vironments for young children - physical space. Washington,
D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young
Children, 1977.
Osman, F. L.: Patterns for designing children's center. New
York Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1971.
S t r e v e l l , W. H.: Pre-construction planning for educational
facilities. Association of School Business Officials, Re
search Bulletin #13. Park Ridge, 111.: Association of
School Business Officials, 1972.
Texas Education Agency Catalogue of state adopted textbooks for
period of September 1, 1973 through August 31, 1977,
Bulletin 732, Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency, 1973.
Texas Education Agency Bulletin 696. A guide for the education
of five-year-old children in Texas, 1970. (1980 excerpt.)
Waligura, R. L.: Environment criteria: M R preschool f a cili
ties. College Station, Texas: College of Architecture
and Environmental Design, Texas A4M University, 1972.
202
VITA
Name: Joanne Shelbourne Berridge

3807 Fourth Street
Bryan, Texas
Date of Birth: February 11, 1932
Place of Birth: Idabel, Oklahoma
High School: Graduated in 1948 from Corpus Christi High School
Degrees: Bachelor of Science, Texas Women's University,

Denton, Texas, May, 1952
Master of Education, Ball State University,

Muncie, Indiana, August, 1970
Doctor of Education, Texas A&M University,

College Station, Texas, December, 1983
Certifications: Vocational Home Economics

Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary Supervision
Majors: Vocational Home Economics

Elementary Education
Elementary Curriculum and Instruction
Minors: Chemistry
Kindergarten/Early Childhood
Architecture
Teaching
Experience: Vocational Home Economics
Non-Graded Primary
Year-round Headstart
Preschool
Kindergarten

Programme For Kindergarten Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Programme For Kindergarten Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Programme For Kindergarten Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

B e rrid g e , Joanne Shelboum e

AN APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING FOR KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES.

Texas A&M University Ed.D. 1983

1. Glossy photographs or pages______

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages \ /

8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____

12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered____________ . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages______

15. Other_________________ ______________________________

FOR KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES

JOANNE SHELBOURNE BERRIDGE

Submitted to the Graduate College of

Major Subject: Curriculum and Instruction

JOANNE SHELBOURNE BERRIDGE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

FOR KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES

JOANNE SHELBOURNE BERRIDGE

Approved as to style and content by:

w Douglas C. Godwin Wm. H.

For Kindergarten Facilities. (December 1983)

Joanne Shelboume Berridge, B.S., Texas Women's University

M.A., Ball State University

Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Anna C. Seaman

This record of study describes the events that led to the

development of the document, An Approach to Programming For

Kindergarten Facilities, which addressed the task of writing a program

for kindergarten facilities. The intent was to offer something which

could be used as a working guide by local planning committee members

when anticipating provision of new or remodeled spaces for

kindergarten children and their teachers. It resulted from a felt

includes the process of document development from research in two

disciplines, Education and Architecture, through the construction of

Respondents chosen to review and respond to An Approach to

Programming for Kindergarten Facilities concerning its clarity,

completeness and potential useability were selected on the basis of

of people: (a) School Board members (b) School Superintendents

(c) Principals of schools containing kindergartens (d) Elementary

Coordinators (or similar title) (e) Kindergarten teachers (f) Parents

of kindergarteners and (g) Professional designers.

Data collected reflected the personal and professional background

and experiences of the respondents, the ratings for clarity and

completeness of each portion of the document and responses to

questions concerning potential use of the document. Respondents,

after identification and indication of willingness to participate in

questions, comments or errors. They were cautioned that they were

responding to clarity, completeness and usability and not to

philosopuy. One to two weeks after receipt of the document, personal

15. Other_ ______________