CELEBRATING THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF THE · PDF fileCELEBRATING THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF ... Penny Barratt T˚˙ B&˜ˆ˛˙ Sˇ˚$$!, L$#ˆ$# ... DianeLeckieandPauline

CELEBRATING THEFIRST 10 YEARS OF

THE JOURNAL

Edited by Glenys Jones

Published in partnership with The University of Birmingham

autism.west midlands and Autism Cymru

Good Autism Practice (Special)_Good Autism Practice 05/10/2010 11:32 Page 1

Editorial BoardGlenys Jones University of Birmingham

Elizabeth Attfield autism.west midlands

Rita Jordan University of Birmingham

Eve Matthews autism.west midlands

Stephanie Robinson Brunel University

Management BoardColin Bennett autism.west midlands

Glenys Jones University of Birmingham

Hugh Morgan Autism Cymru

Keith Smith British Institute of Learning Disabilities

UK Associate EditorsPenny Barratt The Bridge School, London

Gillian Boyd HMI, Northern Ireland

Phil Christie Early Years Centre, Nottinghamshire

Mick Connelly Education Department, Blackpool

Val Cumine Educational Psychology Service,

Lancashire

Jackie McCormick Gloucestershire Group Homes

Pat Matthews Irish Society for Autism, Dublin

Lynn Mason ENTA, Birmingham

Lynne Moxon South Hill College, Sunderland

Fred Parsons Nottinghamshire Regional Society for

Autistic Children & Adults

Nick Prendergast St Andrew’s Hospital,

Northampton

Maggi Rigg The Cambian Group, Hampshire

Janet Stirling The Scottish Society for Autism

Jim Taylor The Scottish Society for Autism

Stephen Tyler Inscape House School, Cheshire

Philip Whitaker Education Psychology Service,

Northamptonshire

Dawn Wimpory University of Bangor, North Wales

International AssociateEditorsDulce Anastaciou Philippines

David Andrews Finland

Tony Attwood Australia

Hilde de Clercq Belgium

Mira Howard Thailand

Valeria Llacer Brazil

Vaya Papageorgiou Greece

Theo Peeters Belgium

Alejandra Severgnini Uruguay

Liuba Toader Romania

Good Autism Practice 12/1_Good Autism Practice 16/05/2011 12:47 Page 2

The Autism Centre for Education and Research within the College of SocialSciences at the University of Birmingham is primarily engaged in two relatedfields of work – training and research.

Training: Accredited courses at the University of BirminghamOur approach to the autism spectrum is heavily influenced by oneindividual – the person you are supporting. Whether you are a practitioneror a parent/carer working or living with children or adults on the autismspectrum, there is a programme designed for you.

A broad range of studyFull-time, part-time, distance or campus: our programmes offerqualifications at all levels from first certificate to Masters degree level, andwork from our programmes may contribute to NVQ/LDAF qualifications.

Learn moreTo find out more and receive an application form Call: 0121 414 4866 orE-mail: [email protected]: www.webautism.bham.ac.uk

Programmes attract a lot of interest and start again in September2011. Apply early to secure your place.

Recent research and resources produced by ACER

Autism Education Trust: Review of educational provision in England (Joneset al, 2008) (see www.autismeducationtrust.org.uk for a full report)DCSF IDP DVD and web resources on the autism spectrum for early yearssettings and primary and secondary schools (Google IDP Autism and followthe links)National Council for Special Education in Ireland: a review of evidence oneducational interventions (available at www.ncse.ie)

ACER website:www.education.bham.ac.uk/research/acer/


IntroductionIn May 2009, I published a paper entitled ‘DesigningLearning Spaces for Children on the Autism Spectrum’ inthis Journal. The paper reviewed the existing knowledgein relation to designing for autism, to establish whichcriteria were being used by Architects and HealthProfessionals involved in the briefing and design processfor new autism classroom spaces. I then went on to casestudy three new units and a school for autism to see howthese criteria were applied in practice and to establishany new and innovative approaches to the subject.

Recent research by Jenkins and Forsyth (2010) hasexamined different ways in which architectural designcould actively involve the end participant in the briefingand design process.

‘Recommendations for the profession are: To stressthe importance of user and social participation in thebrief development and design stages of theprofessional plan of Work … To promote the role ofsocial engagement with architecture in educationand continued professional development – includingparticipatory skills training.’ (Jenkins and Forsyth,2010, p. 164–165).

It became very clear from the above paper that whatwas missing was an attempt to involve the children onthe autism spectrum in the process and to interpret theirneeds and desires in relation to the spaces beingdesigned for them. This paper attempts to address thisdeficit by recording and analysing a week long projectundertaken by secondary school children on the autistic

Analysisofaprojecttodesigntheidealclassroomundertakenbyagroupofchildrenontheautisticspectrum

GAP,12,1,2011 13

Analysis of a project to designthe ideal classroomundertaken by a group ofchildren on the autismspectrum and students ofarchitecture

Iain Scott, Edinburgh

Editorial commentIain Scott works within the Edinburgh School of Architecture andLandscapeArchitecture(ESALA),UK.Thispaperdescribesaweek-longprojecttodesigntheidealclassroomundertakenby12secondary-agedpupilsontheautismspectrumfromKaimesSchoolinEdinburgh.Theproject was run by the author with 10 students from the School ofArchitectureatEdinburghCollegeofArtandESALA.ESALAisthenewlyformedEdinburghSchoolofArchitectureandLandscapeArchitecturecreated through an alignment of programmes previously offeredseparatelybyTheUniversityofEdinburghandEdinburghCollegeofArt.Thestudentsemployedprojectivetechniquesandestablishedmethodsof analysis to help understand the core meanings and concernscontainedwithintheworkofthechildren.Thepaperproposesthataswithallbuildingusers,childrenwithautismshouldnotbeexcludedfromthe process of designing buildings to address their physical andpsychologicalneeds.

Address forcorrespondence

EdinburghSchoolofArchitectureandLandscapeArchitectureLauristonPlaceCampus74LauristonPlaceEdinburghEH39DE.

E- [email protected]

AcknowledgementsThankstoallstaffatKaimesSchoolinvolvedinthesettingupandrunningoftheproject,particularlyHeadTeacherKathTogneri,ClassTeachersDianeLeckieandPaulineWernickandLearningAssistantsSusanHolmanandKarenPringlefortheirhardworkandassistance.


spectrum working with students from the School ofArchitecture at ESALA and Edinburgh College of Art.

The strategies involved included a projective techniquedesigned within the framework of Personal ConstructPsychology (PCP), (Kelly, 1955). Architectural interest inPCP originated in the 1970’s specifically when Stringer(1970; 1976) explored people’s perceptions of ShoppingCentre developments using the technique. PCPattempts to elicit wishes and desires which may exist ata sub- conscious level in relation to the experience ofplaces and environments.

Informed by this, the pupils then did drawings and madearchitectural models of their ideal classroom which werethen analysed to interpret the meanings contained withinthe children’s work. There exists a large body ofacademic work in relation to interpreting children’sdrawings, some of it autismspecific (Brooks, 2004;Kellman, 2001). No such body of work exists in relationto model- making by children, although this is a primarymethod of visual communication employed andinterpreted by students of architecture.

Lastly, based upon the knowledge gained from theproject, each student completed their own design forthe ideal classroom on the same site, (an existingbasketball court next to the school), including a post- design appraisal of how the design had been informedby the work of the children. In the interests of brevity, thispaper will focus principally on the week long project andwill provide an analysis of the output of the children whotook part.

Background to the projectThe project was undertaken at Kaimes School inEdinburgh during one full week of February 2010.Kaimes is a school for children and young people whohave problems in the area of social communication,social interaction and flexibility of thinking. Most of thepupils have a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.Two classes involving twelve pupils; (11 male and onefemale), aged 13–15 years, were assigned to work withten students from the Architecture and Well- Being Post- Graduate Diploma Unit.

The students were joined by a post- graduate studentworking on a separate research project into ‘Designingfor Autism’ at the University of Edinburgh. The authorwas also actively engaged in the project, allowing the

children to receive ‘one to one’ support throughout theweek. Prior to the week- long exercise, the architecturestudents were introduced to the theories of PersonalConstruct Psychology (Kelly, 1955) and frameworks forthe analysis of children’s drawings (Brooks, 2001;Kellman, 2004). They were also provided with literaturesources to familiarise themselves with the condition ofautism and to digest available published material onautism and environment, including the work of theauthor.

Methods1. Personal Construct Psychology (PCP)It was agreed, as suggested by Aspinall and Ujam(1992) that our role would be to elicit children’s ideas ofplace and at no stage to suggest design alternatives. Arelated objective was the educational one usingtechniques that would facilitate and stimulate thinkingand discussion necessary to the design process ratherthan in producing the final design proposal

PCP techniques can be used to elicit desires and wishesin relation to environmental experiences which may existat a sub- conscious level. They can be applied bydesigners to explore the desires and concerns of clientswhich may go unstated in the brief for a proposeddesign. The basic premise of PCP is that ourperceptions of the world are processed through asystem of individual constructions rather than a first- hand interpretation of reality as found. These ‘realityconstructions’ mediate our understanding of the worldand form the basis for our subsequent decision- making.Each person uses their own ‘construct system’ to filterand interpret their experience. Kelly’s theory outlines theproperties of the construct system and its attendantrepertory grid methodology allows for an individual’sconstructs to be defined and quantified. In attemptingto elicit someone’s ‘system of constructs’ the key termsare elements and constructs. Elements are the objects,situations or people upon which our constructs operate.The constructs are the features or qualities whichdistinguish elements from one another. Constructs arediscriminatory and operate between established ‘poles’.So, in interpreting environmental qualities, we placethese qualities somewhere along an axis between thesepolar extremes. Dark or light, open or closed etc. Lastly,systems of constructs are hierarchical with thefundamental ‘core constructs’ of any person’s systembeing at the top of the hierarchy. The use of a picture- based assessment is a common technique in PCP and


14 GAP,12,1,2011


was employed here as an appropriate method given thechildren’s familiarity with other picture- based methods,(eg TEACCH, PECS and ABA among others). PCP isalso being increasingly applied in producing personalconstruct assessments of adults on the autisticspectrum (Hare, Jones and Paine, 1999).

2. Drawing and model- making analysisAllen (2009, p. 539) cites a number of studies and statesthat:

‘The drawing skills of children with autism appear tobe unimpaired relative to age matched typical peers(Charman and Baron- Cohen, 1993; Eames andCox, 1994), although differences are evident indrawing style. Children with autism produce anoverlap in pictures of humans but not non- humans(Fein et al, 1990) and have difficulty in producingdistinctive drawings of humans, but not houses (Leeand Hobson, 2006)’.

There exists a considerable body of work which reflectsa growing interest in the interpretation of children’sdrawings as an educational, ‘meaning–making’ tool.Historically, analysis of children’s drawings derives fromtwo key discourses; Piaget’s Developmental Learningtheory and theories of Aesthetics (Piaget, 1956). Thesebuilt on (Laquet’s, 1927) ‘Stages of Drawing’ theoryarguing that drawing provides a window into the child’scognitive development. This subsequently led toanalyses of drawing techniques as ‘benchmarks’ forchildren’s cognitive development (Kellogg, 1969).Aesthetics theory as developed by Taunton (1982) andSmith(1989) focuses on essentially abstract ideas ofaesthetic beauty in children’s drawings as oftendemonstrated by their primal simplicity and lack of self- consciousness.

Brooks (2003, p. 41) argues that:

‘Aesthetics does little to address the many real problem- solving and meaning- making activities thatare inherent in the process of drawing for youngchildren’.

Also, in recent years there has been a shift from a de- contextualised, psychological focus on children’sdrawings towards an increased interest in children’s meaning- making through drawing, and a focus on the socio- cultural contexts of drawing activity (Anning, 2003).

Brooks (2003) proposes the use of a Vygotskiantheoretical framework for interpreting children’sdrawings. Vygotsky (1962;1978) saw learning anddevelopment co- existing in a socio- cultural and historicalprocess that operated on three levels. The first being theinteractive level where children gain understandingthrough their immediate interactions with people andobjects. The second is the structural level whereknowledge is gained and filtered through interaction withsocial structures such as the classroom or family. Thethird level is the ‘global’ cultural level where interactionwith social, historical and cultural phenomena shape theway children learn within their own established culture.Brooks argues that the learning environment for anydrawing task should reflect these three levels of socialcontext, allowing for discussion and analysis of thedrawing process and content to be made with referenceto all three levels. This framework was adopted for thepurpose of analysing both the drawings and models ofthe children and for reflecting upon the process ofdrawing and meaning- making itself and the attendantdiscussions with the children. The learning environmentfor the drawing and modelling tasks was structuredthus:

1. The children worked alongside a member of thestudent group and at a table beside one other pupiland student. They interacted with other individuals ofthis small group and with the materials for the task inconstructing their ideas. Students were encouragedto observe the drawings as they were produced andto interview the subject with open- ended questions.

2. The children were able to filter and test ideas throughtheir discourse with this small group of peers andadults. Upon completion of both the drawing andmodelling tasks, a collective ‘review’ session wasconducted which allowed proposals to be the subjectof a critique by the whole group. On the final day ofthe project the children’s parents were invited to apresentation and celebration of the work of the weekat which parents were actively encouraged to discussthe work with their child and co- workers.

3. By taking the children out of the classroom and intothe exterior environment the children were able toengage with ‘the world’ and its phenomena.Discussions on site with the children included theimpact of nature on their proposals (eg. Whatdirection does the sun come from?). Also the childrenhad wider cultural and social influences which it was


GAP,12,1,2011 15


interesting to see them bring to and interpret througha design project.

Kellman (2004) emphasises the use of ‘drawingsystems’ in the art of children with autism. Her definitionof a drawing system is the means by which the persondrawing describes three dimensional space and theobjects residing within it. Children with autism are knownto combine different geometric techniques within theone drawing and Kellman is interested in the drawingsystems utility for the child as an image maker. She seesthe often multiple drawing systems employed by autisticchildren as,

‘... manifestations of various grammars thatcontinue to be exploited as an image’s purposewarrants it’. (Kellman, 2004, p. 16).

Furthermore:

‘Drawing systems emphasise spatial relationshipsand structural concerns, a useful strategyconsidering the fact that young artists with autismfrequently focus on the geometrical structure of avisual scene and on the forms and structures ofobjects themselves in their drawings’. (Kellman,2004, p. 16).

Analysis of the children’s drawings was carried out bythe author based upon the written reflections of thestudents.

Day 1The first day involved the children in a visit to EdinburghCollege of Art where they were given a short slide

presentation on the work they would be engaged in. Theywere also introduced to the work of the students througha tour of the architecture studios and visited an exhibitionin the college sculpture court. During the afternoon thegroup visited the Museum of Scotland where they wereengaged in a simple task to decide on a favourite buildingelement (eg stair, window, display case, etc) and to drawit to the best of their ability. The principal purpose of thefirst day was to engage the pupils in an original social andeducational experience, to allow the children andstudents to get to know one another and introduce thechildren to the week- long task. The rest of the week wasspent working at their school.

Day 2The timetable for Days two, three and four included amorning session from 9.30am until noon, with a half- hour break from 10.30 until 11. The afternoon sessionran from 1pm until 2.30pm. Students were encouragedto be sensitive to the needs of each individual child andto allow them to take a break from working on as andwhen required. The site for the project was an existingbasketball court outside the main school building. It wasfelt that this ‘real- life’ context would help the children toenvisage an intervention, rather than attempting toimagine their ‘ideal’ classroom in no particular place.However, some of the children had difficulty inunderstanding the concept of an imaginary designproject, sited in a real location which they knew well.During the morning of Day two, site information wasgathered through dimensioning, sketching and takingphotographs.

Materials for making architectural models had beencollected by pupils, staff and students in the weeks


16 GAP,12,1,2011

Figure 1: SitevisitonDay2andgardenmodel.


leading up to the project allowing the children to haveaccess to a rich assortment of colours, materials andtextures. Each child was given an A3, MDF board,(roughly the same dimension as the basketball court at1:50), to use as a base. In order to allow the pupils timeto experiment with model- making and to gainconfidence in working with the materials provided, theafternoon of Day 2 was spent making a design for agarden on the site. This also had the added advantageof illustrating to the pupils the imaginary nature of adesign proposal. Pupils were each paired up with astudent and were organised at working tables within twoadjoining classrooms. Two pupils and two students wereassigned to work at each table. This allowed students towork alternatively with two different children over thecourse of a session. Pupils were therefore able to sharetheir ideas within a small group. At the end of eachsession, on Days two, three and four the entire groupgathered together around all of the displayed modelsand drawings to allow the children to present theirproposals and generate a wider discussion amongst thefull cohort. This allowed the children to take stock ofwhat they had created and learned.

‘In this way learning is not an end in itself but rathera way of participating in a social event to masternew knowledge. Knowledge is not simply factual,but is also knowledge that grows out of socially andpersonally meaningful explorations and questionsformulated by and amongst the children’ (Brooks,2004, p. 45).

Day 3The morning of Day 3 was used to implement theprojective technique of PCP to elicit the children’sfeelings about aspects of environment and space.

Students and pupils worked on a one- to- one basis forthe full morning. Prior to the week of the project,students worked with the author to design the form andcontent of the PCP strategy. Pupils were presented withten different sets of three images arranged horizontallyand depicted in black and white. Each set of imageswas chosen to represent different aspects ofenvironment and place which are considered to beimportant in designing for autism, such as orderedspatial structure, legible way- finding, security andindependence, simple detailing etc. (Scott, 2010;Beaver, 2006). The children were then asked to selecttheir favourite image from each set and expand on theirreasons for that selection, explaining:

a) What they liked about it and why? (2 reasons).

b) What they did not like about it and why? (1 reason).

c) What would they like to do if they were there?

d) How could it be better?

e) Any other observations?

The questions were designed to elicit elements andconstructs within three main categories. These werespatial experience, activities and design features(Aspinall and Ujam, 1992). During the evening of Day 3,each student made up a storyboard of their pupil’schosen images complete with some of the keyconstructs elicited from the questionnaire. This was thenmade available to each pupil during the model- makingtask for the following day, to form a basis for discussionon preferred elements to be included in the class- roomdesign.

The afternoon of Day 3 was spent drawing the idealclassroom. As before, students worked with children inpairs, discussing their ideas throughout the drawingtask. At the end of the session a review session wasconducted where the children presented their drawing tothe entire class and a discussion was conducted by theauthor of the ideas contained therein. The focus ofdiscussion was about the meaning and information itcontained rather than on drawing skills and aestheticqualities.


GAP,12,1,2011 17

Figure 2: Dailyreviewsession


Day 4Based upon the drawings the children had completed,the children spent the day making models of their ‘idealclassroom’. As before, students observed the work ofthe pupils on a one to one basis in groups of two,continuing to discuss their design proposals which werenow three dimensional. For almost all of the children themodel became an attempt to directly replicate theelements contained in the drawing in three dimensions.Once again at the end of the session a review of thework was conducted. As Davis (2005) maintains, it isimportant to talk to children about their creations in orderto fully understand their interests and intentions.

Day 5Students spent the evening of Day 4 assembling a power- point presentation reflecting the work of theweek. This encompassed images from the visits on Day1, and the visit to the site on Day 2. The work of eachchild was then presented in sequence showing theresults of the PCP exercise, the garden model, anddrawings and models of the ideal classroom. Parentswere invited to the school for the presentation andcelebration of the work. Students verbally presented thework of each child to a group including the pupils,students, parents and teaching staff. Following this therewas an opportunity for the children and parents todiscuss the work informally with the author andstudents.

Analysis of the PCP strategyThe responses given to the questionnaire were sortedinto three categories: aspects of place experience,activities and design features. The frequency of eachelement or construct repeating was recorded as a way

of eliciting broad concerns which affected the group asa whole. Fundamentally of interest to the author was therelationship of these concerns to the summary of designcriteria available to architect’s designing for children onthe autism spectrum. The criteria interpreted from amultiplicity of sources are as follows:

A. “The requirement to provide an ordered andcomprehensible spatial structure.

B. The requirement to provide a mix of large andsmall spaces.

C. The requirement to provide increased control ofthe environmental conditions to the user.

D. The requirement to provide for different, autismspecific teaching methods.

E. The need to balance security andindependence.

F. The need to provide simple and reduceddetailing.

G. The requirement for the end user to be activelyinvolved in the brief- building and designprocess.

H. Appropriate use of technology to aid the autisticlearning experience.

I. Appropriate technical specification”. (Scott,2009, p. 41).

Firstly, with reference to criterion G, this paper isintended to outline a projective method for designers toengage with the child with autism in eliciting theirconcerns and desires in relation to the environments


18 GAP,12,1,2011

Figure 3: StoryboardofPCPsurveychoices.


designed for them. The requirement to provide fordifferent, autism specific teaching methods andappropriate technical specification are criteria which aredifficult to interpret through a survey of this nature anddo not form part of the analysis here. Tables for each ofthe three categories are contained in Appendix 1.

A. The requirement to provide an ordered andcomprehensible spatial structure was clearly reflected inthe responses of the group as a whole. In the ‘Aspectsof Place Experience’ category, one of the most popularconstructs was the desire for tidiness and order. Anotherconstruct was a preference for spaces to be ‘un- confusing’. One child in commenting on a particularimage stated it was, “Too confusing, a cat could getlost”! References were also made to emptiness, barewalls and space to walk around which all can beinterpreted as reflecting a desire for spatial andenvironmental simplicity. In the Design Featurescategory, one child requested clear signs to help findyour way around.

B. The requirement to provide a mix of large and smallspaces was also broadly reflected in the ‘Aspects’category. Two children in particular stated their opinionthat small spaces were good and large spaces bad. Theneed to be alone and have quietness was alsoexpressed as was the desire to sometimes be in adifferent space to the teacher. In the ‘Activities’ category,one child in particular expressed a liking for, ‘hiding butnot spying’. In contrast to this, pupils also expressedpreferences for space to walk around and things to be‘light and airy’.

C. The requirement to provide greater control ofenvironmental conditions to the user is interpretablethrough the children’s preference for a multitude ofdifferent environmental conditions. Light and airy/cosywere both popular constructs expressing opposingconditions. The need for sunlight and brightness wasexpressed by many as was the desire for darknesswhich was seen as a positive condition. Quietness wasalso communicated alongside the desire for music andsounds.

D. The need to balance security and independence.The need for a direct relationship to the world outsidethe classroom is possibly the most significant findingfrom the survey. It is clearly reflected across all threecategories with high frequency. All the children who took

part expressed a clear desire to have a relationship withthe world outside the classroom through ‘Views to theoutside (18) and ‘views of sky/clouds’ (6). The mostpreferred design feature was ‘big windows’ (19).Preferred activities included running outside, picnicking,playing football and basketball, dancing, looking at trees,climbing and sitting on the grass, whilst preferred‘Design Features’ included trees, water, flowers andplants. All this clearly supports the premise that:

“whilst a secure out of doors environment isdesirable for all children it is particularly pertinent tochildren with ASD”. (Scott, 2009, p. 40).

E. The need to provide simple and reduced detailing.Many of the children expressed a desire for visualsimplicity and a disdain for clutter which would supportdesigners pursuing a more minimal approach to thedetail design of spaces for children with autism. Morethan one child expressed a liking for rectangles as aclear and understandable geometry over more complexforms. Bare walls, tidiness and clean surfaces wereother preferences within the ‘Aspects’ category. Drawersand cupboards were chosen on more than oneoccasion as an important design feature to improvetidiness.

F. The use of technology to aid the autistic learningexperience. Computers, lap- tops, smart boards and aplasma screen were all cited as important designfeatures within the ‘Ideal Classroom’. Clearly these aretechnological instruments which are readily known andaccessible to almost all of the children interviewed. Twoseparate children also expressed a desire for theclassroom to be modern and futuristic. The desire of thechildren to engage with the world outside the classroomas clearly expressed by the survey is a challenge fordesigners which could also be met through theinnovative use of technology as employed byWigglesworth at Mossbrook in Sheffield (Chiles, 2003).

Overall, the criteria stated above appear to be reflectedin the concerns of the children as elicited by the survey.Relationship to nature is clearly a key concern of childrenwith autism which was reflected with the highestfrequency within two of the three categories. The‘Aspects of Place Experience’ category appears to havebeen the most illuminating of the three, with a stronghierarchical order reflecting relationship to the outside,lightness and airiness, geometric simplicity and tidiness


GAP,12,1,2011 19


in that order. The ‘Activities’ category interestinglycommunicates no such hierarchy within the group butappears simply to reflect the diverse set of physicalactivities enjoyed by the participants. Many of thechildren found it difficult to ‘imagine’ them- selvespursuing activities in any kind of spontaneous way assuggested by a particular environment and fell back onparticular favourite physical pursuits unrelated to thechosen image. It would certainly appear that this is adifficult category within which children with autism canmeaningfully express themselves. The ‘Design Features’category also contained a strong hierarchy, with furnitureand lighting being of particular concern after the needfor ‘big windows’.

Analysis of the drawing andmodelling task.The pupils all displayed different skills and abilities in boththe drawing and modelling tasks. All of the drawingsproduced contained aspects of various geometricalsystems being employed. Some children employed theelevational method of placing elements along a baseline,each with the inherent hierarchy of important elementsbeing placed in the centre of the image and lessimportant elements to the outside. Each pupil also usedelements of perspective to render particular objects inthree dimensions. Overlapping of objects was universallyunpopular and each element chosen needed its own‘personal space’.

One pairing of pupils both implemented the samegeometric drawing convention of drawing a plan with thewalls of the space ‘folded down’ to allow a more threedimensional rendering to be achieved. This then allowed

those pupils to depict a more complex series of spaces‘from above’. This illustrates clearly the second level ofthe ‘Vygotskian’ framework where ideas are discussedand transferred within the small working group. In theexample shown (Figure 5) the pupil demonstrates adesire for a series of spaces including an art room and‘punishment room’ complete with a violin and somemaths books. There is also one further additional roomto allow the child to be alone, containing favouredelements such as a sofa, bed, television and ‘NintendoWii’. This room is depicted as outside the envelope ofthe main space, emphasising its importance andseparateness.

Most children struggled to imagine what else could gointo a classroom, beyond what their cultural andinstitutional associations said they already knew aclassroom to be. It appears in certain instances that theexisting school environment was a powerful ‘frame ofreference’ for each child’s proposal. The plan drawing inFigure 5 clearly illustrates this. When the pupil was askedif they would like to have access to the outdoors thiswas incorporated by the introduction of a corridor, ratherthan being achieved more directly by an opening directfrom the classroom space to the outside. Beyond this,each child depicted their own favoured elements usuallywith reference to a favoured theme such as Dr Who,James Bond and Top Gear. Discussion around theincorporation of qualities from the PCP survey proveddifficult with the exception in one or two instances ofparticular elements chosen during the questionnaire,(wooden roof beams and a large open air canopy),taking their place in the drawn depiction. In all of thedrawings of the classroom the image is one of the inside


20 GAP,12,1,2011

Figure 4: Drawingsoftheidealclassroom.


of the space only, though each child does includeopenings as an important element often rendered withviews of the sky, a garden or the city.

Each of the children found great difficulty in imaginingspace and so in almost every instance the drawing

became a template for the model making of the idealclassroom.

All of the pupils were interested in the opportunitiesafforded by using different materials to impart differentqualities to elements within the space. They then realised


GAP,12,1,2011 21

Figure 5: Foldedwallplandrawing.

Figure 6: Modelsoftheidealclassroom.


that by placing elements within the main space, a seriesof different zones could be created. Concern for any threedimensional qualities of the envelope weredismissed by each child as unimportant, clearlyindicating that all of the pupils made little or noconnection between space created and the resultantobject. Pupils did find it easier when working on themodel to determine the proportion of objects in relationto one another than they did in completing the drawingtask.

Student presentations of the idealclassroom.All the students prepared an analysis of the drawingsand models produced by the children to identifyconsistent themes, environmental preferences anddesign elements. Using the knowledge gained from thework with the children the students then produceddrawings and models of their own design for the idealclassroom on the same site. Lastly each studentcompleted a post- design analysis of their proposal,highlighting key design features and their relevance todesigning for autism. Student feedback in relation to theproject was extremely positive.

‘Doing the project gave me an insight into autismand the requirements of spaces that encouragepositive development in the children. I learned theimportance of understanding the way the childrenwill experience and use a space and hopefully howto make a contribution to their development andindependence’. Richard Esono Suguitan: ESALAM.Arch 2.

Concluding commentsThe project had a number of key intentions. Firstly, tointroduce those involved to a teaching model for childrento learn about space and architecture. The model wasdesigned to allow the child with autism a gradual butcomprehensive introduction to the subject but couldeasily be used as an educational model for introducing school- children generally to the subject of environmentaldesign. Chiles (2003) highlights the difficulty of engagingchildren in a subject they have not previously beentaught. Clearly, this could be achieved over the course ofa one week intensive project or in an extrapolated wayby stringing each phase of the design process out overthe course of a number of weeks. From the feedbackreceived from students, teachers and parents of thechildren involved, the week was an intensely rewardingand educational experience for everyone.

Another key driver was the objective of discovering thekey concerns of the child with autism in relation to thespaces they inhabit and if the criteria which are availableto architects designing new classroom facilities werebroadly supported by these concerns. It appears clearfrom the data collected that these concerns are broadlyreflected by the cohort of pupils who took part. Keyaspects of the criteria such as access to nature, largeand small spaces, views to the outside, order and clarityand the incorporation of technology are all clearlydiscernible from the material output of the children.

Finally, it is universally acknowledged that designersshould engage with the users of their buildings as a wayof discovering their needs and concerns during the brief- building process. Active engagement with childrenthrough some form of preparatory design project hasbeen attempted before, most notably through the‘Schools for the Future Project’ in Sheffield, 2002.However without a clear model for analysing particularoutputs of the participants it becomes difficult tomeaningfully interpret the results of any project. AsChiles (2003) points out:

‘Toomuch un- prioritised or over- abstract informationcan be very difficult to absorb effectively. A carefullythought out method of communication between allparties is imperative for the effective transfer ofinformation from user to professional.’ (p. 250)

This model could be used as an effective tool fordiscretely eliciting design choices and intentions not only


22 GAP,12,1,2011

Figure 7: Ideal classroom proposal. R. Esono-Suguitan;ESALAM.Arch2.


from children with autism but from children and adults ingeneral.

ReferencesAllen, M (2009) Decoding Representations: HowChildren with Autism Understand Drawings Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 39(3), 539–543.

Anning, A (2003) Pathways to the Graphicacy club: Thecrossroad of home and pre- school Journal of EarlyChildhood Literacy 3(1), 5–35.

Aspinall, P and Ujam, F (1992) A Projective Approach toDesigning with Children Landscape Research 17(3),124–131.

Beaver, C (2006) Designing Environments for Childrenand Adults with Autistic Spectrum Disorder Paperpresented to International Conference on Autism, CapeTown, SA.

Bogdashina, O (2006) Theory of Mind and the Triad ofPerspectives on Autism and Asperger SyndromeLondon: Jessica Kingsley.

Bogdashina, O (2004) Communication Issues in Autismand Asperger Syndrome: Do We Speak the SameLanguage? London: Jessica Kingsley.

Broadbent, G (1977) A Plain Man’s Guide to the Theoryof Signs in Architecture Architectural Design 47(7/8), p.474.

Brooks, M (2004) Drawing: The Social Construction ofKnowledge Australian Journal of Early Childhood 29(2),41–49.

Chiles, P (2003) Classrooms for the Future: An Adventurein design and Research ARQ.7(3/4), 244–262.

Davis, J H (2005) Framing Education as Art – TheOctopus has a Good Day New York: Teacher’s CollegePress.

Department for Education & Employment (2005)Building Bulletin 77: Designing for People with SpecialEducational Needs and Disabilities in Schools London:DfEE.

Hare, D, Jones, J and Paine, C (1999) ApproachingReality: The Use of Personal Construct Assessment in

Working with People with Asperger Syndrome Autism3(2), 165–176.

Jenkins, P and Forsyth, L (2010) Architecture,Participation & Society London: Routledge.

Kellman, J (2001) Autism, Art and Children - The StoriesWe Draw Westport, Conn: Bergin & Harvey.

Kellman, J (2004) Art of a Child with Autism – DrawingSystems and Proto- Mathematics Journal of AestheticEducation 38 (1), 12–22.

Kellogg, R (1969) Analysing Children’s Art Palo Alto, CA:National Press.

Kelly, G (1955) The Psychology of Personal ConstructsNew York: Norton.

Lauquet, G H (1956) Le Dessin Enfantin Paris: Alcan.

Piaget, J (1956) The Child’s Conception of Space NewYork: MacMillan.

Scott, I (2009) Designing Learning Spaces for Childrenon the Autistic Spectrum GAP Journal 10(1), 36–51.

Smith, R (1989) The Sense of Art: A Study in AestheticEducation New York: Routledge.

Stringer, P (1970) Architecture, Psychology – TheGames the Same. In: Canter, D (ed) ArchitecturePsychology, London: RIBA.

Stringer, P (1976) Repertory Grids in the Study ofEnvironmental Perception. In: Slater, P (ed) Explorationsin Interpersonal Space New York: Wiley.

Taunton, M (1982) Aesthetic Responses of YoungChildren to the Visual Arts: A Review of the LiteratureJournal of Aesthetic Education 16, 93–108.

Vygotsky, L (1962) Thought and Language Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L (1978) Mind In Society: The Development ofHigher Psychological Processes Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Wing, L and Gould, J (1979) Severe Impairments ofSocial Interaction and Associated Abnormalities inChildren: Epidemiology and Classification Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 9(1), 11–29.


GAP,12,1,2011 23



24 GAP,12,1,2011

Aspects of Place Experience Frequency

Emptiness 1

Shapes(rectangles) 3

BeingAlone 3

Barewalls 3

Tidiness(Order) 6

Cleansurfaces 2

Noteachers(Teacherinadifferentplace) 2

Viewstooutside 18

Darkness(positive) 2

Sunlight/brightness 9

Music/sounds 1

Viewsofsky/clouds 6

Spacetowalkaround 1

Quietness 1

Lightandairy 3

Nature 1

Shadows 1

Smallspaces(positive)largespaces(negative) 2

Un-confusing 2

Cosiness 6

Futuristic/modern 2

Activities Frequency

Touchingthings 2

Tidyingup 2

Runningoutside 3

Picnic 1

Football/basketball 3

Liedown 4

Writing 1

Playing 3

Dancing 1

Bringfriends 3

Eat 5

Paint 1

Playcomputergames 1

Lookattrees 1

Listentomusic 2

Hiding(butnotspying) 1

Talking 1

Reading 3

Appendix 1: Data from the PCP technique



GAP,12,1,2011 25

Activities Frequency

Sleeping 5

Watchtelevision 5

Gothroughdoors 2

Paint 1

Climb 1

Playping-pong 1

Sitonthegrass 1

Design Features Frequency

Walls 5

Softfurniture(sofas/beds) 13

Books 2

Lights 17

Windows(big) 19

Placetorest 1

Television 8

Tables 11

Chairs 12

Plasmascreen 1

Computer 4

Trees 3

Smartboard 3

Signs(Tohelpfindyourwayaround) 1

Drawersandcupboards(Tidy) 2

Wood(Natural) 1

Water 2

Flowersandplants 4

Statue 1

Lap-tops 2


Documents

CELEBRATING THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF THE · PDF fileCELEBRATING THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF ... Penny Barratt T˚˙ B&˜ˆ˛˙ Sˇ˚$$!, L$#ˆ$# ... Diane­Leckie­and­Pauline

CELEBRATING THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF THE · PDF fileCELEBRATING THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF ... Penny Barratt T˚˙ B&˜ˆ˛˙ Sˇ˚$$!, L$#ˆ$# ... DianeLeckieandPauline