QUEZON CITY SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL
National Capital Region Science High School Golden Acres Rd., cor. Misamis St., Bago Bantay, Q.C.
THE SCIENTIAN SPACE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF THE QCSHS CAMPUS QUALITIES IN ITS PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS
PROPONENTS: Domingo, Annika Farrel L., Domingo, John Emmanuel M., Gocatek, Jed William V., Magan, Shaun Kenneth G., Urmanita, Michael Artagnan O., Villaverde, Jannea Nicole F.
INTRODUCTION Quezon City Science High School is a regional science high school located near the heart of Quezon City. It has 9.4 hectares of land and includes structures that any other general public high school has and more STEM-specific facilities. Its generally large area provides a “mini-forest” space to promote sustainable living and environmentalism among its students. Among the countless factors that can affect a students’ capacity to learn, the campus environment and the students’ perception of it as a conducive environment for learning can be considered as well. These factors — in the influence of the qualities we have set and will examine — will be the focal point of this study.
In general, this research could help determine Architectural designs pleasing to viewers’ eyes but conducive to learning whilst simultaneously promoting the sociological and physical well-being of students, faculty, and visitors alike. This study could help improve Architectural Designs in high school campuses around the Philippines in terms of social and physical experience with structures. In the past decade, evidence regarding the relationship between users’ health and environments has been accumulated from a ‘user-centered’ perspective. This user-centered perspective refers to the approach which aims at designing certain spaces that meet the specific needs or preferences of both current and
potential users. Because of this, it is vital that the architectural setting features or functions, as well as the users’ characteristics and potential activities done in the space, are accurately taken into account to satisfy the users’ fundamental needs (Manca, 2020). A study was conducted in the U.P. Diliman in which they explored the qualities of their campus’ academic core and in their study, they have formed conclusions with respect to the opinion of the respondents regarding the qualities of the campus in different aspects (Sabido & Ramos, 2016). In another study conducted on a different campus, conclusions have also been formed in regards to the student’s mental and social experience in relationship to the campus’ aesthetics (Yang, 2006).
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
RESEARCH DESIGN The researchers utilized quantitative methods in conducting the study to understand students’ perspectives on the campus’ quality through a case study. In this study, the researchers aim to explore students’ insights regarding the physical and social aspects of the QCSHS campus by arranging conditions for data collection and analysis.
The survey was distributed to students of different classes and organizations through batch messaging and promotion through social media. The survey collected 170 responses in the researchers’ implementation of the study.
SAMPLING PROCEDURE The researchers used purposive sampling in gathering participants needed in collecting data. A selection criterion was used as well to represent the population that the researchers want to investigate. Google Forms was the best choice in our implementation of the survey since it was free and straightforward to use. Before the survey proper, the researchers provided a waiver of informed consent. The document certifies that the participant willingly and voluntarily agreed to be a part of the research. RESPONDENTS Individuals that were part of this research answered specific questions before proceeding to the survey proper to validate that the participants are within the inclusion criteria. » The participant is currently studying or is a former student of Quezon City Science High School. » The participant is part of any high school batch expected to graduate in the year 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025. » Transferees with less than 1 year of experience in the campus are excluded. CONSTRUCTION & VALIDATION OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS Preparation of the Survey Questions The researchers adapted the survey questions from the study of Sabido & Ramos (2016). The survey the researchers formed presented different areas in the QCSHS campus from which the respondents can choose to classify and evaluate its different qualities (Sabido & Ramos, 2016). Validation of the Survey Questions The survey’s structure was adapted in part from the study of Sabido & Ramos (2016), wherein the researchers based the survey questions on three classifications: Physical aspects and Social aspects. Using The Concise Townscape regarding visual experience (Cullen, 1995) as the basis for physical aspects, essays Needs in Public Space (Carr, et al., 1992) and Three types of outdoor activities: Outdoor activities and quality of outdoor space (Gehl, 1971) are used as basis for the social aspects.
Students Ranking of Specific Areas in the QCSHS Campus This portion of the survey is divided into two separate parts – physical aspects and social aspects – each with three predetermined qualities. These predetermined qualities we’re taken from the works of Gordon Cullen and Jan Gehl, as mentioned in our Methodology. Interior Spaces
Exterior Spaces
Interior Spaces
Exterior Spaces
Calalay Building & SHS Building
2.44 (3rd)
2.27 (2nd)
Calalay Building & SHS Building
2.61 (3rd)
2.51 (3rd)
SB Building
2.43 (2nd)
2.32 (3rd)
SB Building
2.41 (2nd)
2.20 (1st)
Mathay II Building
2.07 (1st)
2.19 (1st)
Mathay II Building
2.35 (1st)
2.46 (2nd)
Co-op Common Area
3.06 (4th)
3.22 (4th)
Co-op Common Area
2.64 (4th)
2.83 (4th)
Calalay Building & SHS Building
2.58 (3rd)
2.35 (3rd)
Calalay Building & SHS Building
2.86 (4th)
2.78 (4th)
SB Building
2.15 (2nd)
2.06 (1st)
SB Building
2.44 (3rd)
2.22 (1st)
Mathay II Building
2.09 (1st)
2.26 (2nd)
Mathay II Building
2.435 (2nd)
2.47 (2nd)
Co-op Common Area
3.18 (4th)
3.33 (4th)
Co-op Common Area
2.26 (1st)
2.54 (3rd)
Calalay Building & SHS Building
2.78 (4th)
2.70 (4th)
Calalay Building & SHS Building
2.71 (4th)
2.68 (3rd)
SB Building
2.49 (2nd)
2.38 (2nd)
SB Building
2.29 (1st)
2.18 (1st)
Mathay II Building
2.57 (3rd)
2.56 (3rd)
Mathay II Building
2.44 (2nd)
2.46 (2nd)
Co-op Common Area
2.15 (1st)
2.36 (1st)
Co-op Common Area
2.56 (3rd)
2.69 (4th)
Physical Aspects
Natural Scenery
Scale of Space
Presence of Signs and Labels Around the Campus
Social Aspects
Opportunities for Relaxation and Contemplation
Opportunities for Social Activities
Opportunities for Group Meetings and Activities
Students Perception of the Campus as a Conducive Environment for Learning This portion of the survey quantified the students perception campus as a conducive environment for learning through a Likert scale. The Likert scale provided qualities of ideal school environments (Hanover Research, 2011; Minero, 2018) Calalay Building & SHS Buildings
SB Building
Mathay II Building
Co-op Common Area
The space accommodates diverse learning needs The space allows for interactions and collaborative work The space has adequate and effective ventilation and lighting The space has proper integration of technology The space provides a sense of safety and security Strongly Disagree
Disagree
The results of the survey indicate that the physical aspects of the campus are centered on the presence of natural scenery, the scale of space, and adequate signs and labels across the area. The opportunities for relaxation and contemplation, social activities, and group meetings and ac-
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
tivities were used to determine the social qualities. At the same time, several aspects such as space accommodation, interactivity, ventilation and lighting, integration of technology, and safety and security for each building were used to quantify the students’ perceptions of the campus.
REFERENCES USED (2007). In M. Carmona & S. Tiesdell (Eds.), Urban Design Reader. Elsevier. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., & Stone, A. (2006). Needs in Public Space. In Urban Design Reader (pp. 230-239). Elsevier. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/283326819_Needs_in_Public_Space Cullen, G. (1961). The Concise Townscape (1st ed.). Elsevier. Gehl, J. (2014). “Outdoor Activities and Outdoor Space” from Life Between Buildings (1980). In S. M. Wheeler & T. Beatley (Eds.), Sustainable Urban Development (pp. 143-146). Routledge. Hanover Research. (2011). School Structures that Support 21st Century Learning. Hanover Research. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/ legacy_assets/www/bda59d16b8-School_Structures.pdf Manca, S., Cerina, V., Tobia, V., Sacchi, S., & Fornara, F. (2020). The Effect of School Design on Users’ Responses: A Systematic Review. MDPI. Minero, E. (2018). The Architecture of Ideal Learning Environments. The Architecture of Ideal Learning Environments. https://www.edutopia.org/article/architecture-ideal-learning-environments Sabido, B. A. L., & Ramos, G. C. (2016). Exploring Campus Open Space Qualities: Identifying the U.P. Diliman Academic Core’s Predominant Qualities in its Physical, Social and Psychological Aspects. MUHON: A Journal of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and the Designed Environment, (5), 7-16. https://upca.upd.edu.ph/uploads/1/8/5/4/18549486/507_exploring_campus_open_space_qualities.pdf Yang, F. (2006). Undergraduate perspectives on campus architecture: A case study. https://www.proquest.com/openview/eb689669c17e59d8d7ed33da2d0fd62e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
CONCLUSIONS Considering the self-sustaining communities around the QCSHS Campus, the campus’s recognized physical and social qualities are not just differentiating characteristics between the areas within the setting; they can also be considered qualities of a self-sustaining community. Therefore, future planning for building new facilities for a more self-sustaining campus, maintenance, generation, and innovation of the school grounds should be the foremost priority.