Interior Spaces Group
Appendix B: Individual Evaluations of Classrooms


In university life, a campus is a self-contained atmosphere containing fields, buildings, stadia, paved surfaces, dormitories, and classrooms. In keeping with architectural theory, there are criteria that can be set forth to study the classroom as a pedagogical tool.

The criteria set forth are basic principles of original classroom design and are difficult, if not impossible, to rectify inside an existing classroom without inordinate expense. A university study completed in the last year evaluated small technological and interior lighting problems: lit chalkboards, computers, and the like, and assigned dollar figures to fixing those problems. The criteria set forth in this project deal with evaluation and influence on the new construction taking place almost continuously on the Rice Unversity campus. For evaluation, I would propose a university survey of professors and students to establish which classrooms work for a different type of class and which classrooms should be avoided to use unless necessary.
 
 

Classrooms were evaluated in Baker, Duncan, Physics, and Sewall


Sewall 301
GOOD:
High Ceilings
BAD:
Low Natural Light
Wide Sight Lines
Ugly

Sewall 309
GOOD:
High Ceilings
BAD:
Slope of Seating
Low Natural Light
Unattractive

Sewall 506
GOOD:
Sight Lines
Natural Light
BAD:
Desks
Small, Feels Unimportant
Low Ceiling

Physics 210
GOOD:
Acoustical Paneling
BAD:
Low Ceilings
Low Natural Light
High Sloped Ceiling

Physics 119
GOOD:
High Ceiling
Natural Light
Proximity of Teaching
BAD:
Desks
Sight Lines

Duncan 1070
GOOD:
Attractive, new
Tables and Chairs
BAD:
No Natural Light
Wide Sight Lines

Duncan Classroom
GOOD:
Sight Lines
BAD:
Low Natural Light
Bland
Low Ceiling
Back is far away for a small room

Baker Classroom
GOOD:
Natural Light
Teaching Proximity
BAD:
Position of Boards
An afterthought
Desks

Problem 2: Learning Environment

Appendix C: Proposed Classroom Evaluation Survey

Back to Interior Spaces Page

Back to Bake 302 Page