CHAPTER II

PRESENTATION OF DATA

A. Chapter Introduction

In this chapter, researches summarized the gathered data and findings from different sources that can be useful in translating this study
into Architectural Design. This chapter covers about the importance of understanding child psychology in forming personality and to
address questions surrounding curvilinear form and its possible effects on children’s behaviour, the basic knowledge in teaching a
child as we, as adults, greatly influences them and parenting on how to shape a child from its developmental stage. Also, this includes
the study about the importance of learning facilities design and how they affect users especially when designing for children.

TOPIC 1 : Architectural Psychology and its impact to the Behavior and Psyche of the Children

1. Spatial Designs to Enhance Early Development and Wellbeing in Urban Environments

Latoia Williams and Quncie Williams, New York City, USA

The physical environment of dwelling units and outdoor recreation spaces immediately surrounding them is of central importance to
children's cognitive, physical and social development. Where children live has an impact on their early development and well-being.
The built environment has been shown to play a significant role in shaping the lives of young children especially in urban
environments (Burton, 2011). In New York City, for example, space is limited and spaces for children to play safely are at a
premium. Collaboration between child development experts and architects on how to create spatial designs to enhance the growth,
development, and well-being of children in confined urban spaces is needed now more than ever before.

The design issues associated with creating multi-family living spaces in cities and urban environments have long been of interest to
architects and designers. In 1952 Le Corbusier focused on the issue of multi-family living spaces when he was commissioned to
design and build Unite d’Habitation which today houses 1600 residents distributed among eighteen floors in Marseille, France. His
design required a novel approach. Most of the communal aspects were placed on the roof, which became a garden terrace with a
running track, a club, a kindergarten, a gym, and a shallow pool. The Unite d’Habitation is essentially a “city within a city” that is
both spatially and functionally optimized for the residents. This concept has been expanded over the years and has influenced
apartment dwelling designs focused on maximizing the living experience.

Research within the last decade has zeroed in on the role that active design strategies can play in enhancing health and well-being.
Active design strategies to influence better health outcomes in children have provided strong evidence that physical activity is key to
supporting developmental milestones and maintaining good mental health and well-being (CDC, 2015). The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services’ Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommends 60 minutes per day of physical activity for
children (DHHS, 2008). The benefits of physical activity for children extend far beyond healthy weight and prevention of weight-
related chronic diseases. Increased physical activity among children is also associated with improved behavior, self-esteem, and
academic performance (OCAD, et al, 2013). In addition, there is significant evidence of the important role that home and
neighborhood environments play in shaping disparities in physical activity (Gordon-Larsen, et al, 2006). “Daily active living
opportunities such as regular stair use can assist in weight control and chronic disease prevention. Similarly, increased exposure to
green space is associated with higher activity levels and other positive health outcomes, including stress management and improved
mental health” (OCAD et al, 2013:10). Since physical activity levels appear to decrease as children age, especially children in urban
environments, it is important to design urban living spaces that stimulate activity thereby enhancing cognitive development and well-
being.

“Urban and building design strategies for increasing physical activity in daily life have been synthesized in various research studies
and design guidelines” and opportunities “for active transportation, movement in buildings, and active recreation” are instrumental
supports for the success of such designs. (OCAD, et al, 2013:11). Supporting healthy living through residential building designs that
influence activity offers a powerful set of opportunities for early intervention and measurement of sustained effects. Over time, these
strategies can help improve children's individual outcomes by establishing healthy habits with lifelong cognitive benefits.

The physical environment also contributes to children's listening and hearing developmental skills. Since their ability to really focus
on speech does not develop until ages 13-15, it is important that children clearly hear consonant sounds to correctly interpret spoken
words. Consequently, creating physical living spaces that support these developmental stages could provide long-term effects on their
general mental health. A growing body of research indicates that quiet, indoor environments also support the needs of children with
learning difficulties (O’Donnell and Peterson, 2010). This evidence suggests that to maintain a healthy audible interior environment
for children to develop their speech recognition skills, dwelling units should be designed to mask out the rumbles louder than a loud
whisper, including sounds of equipment, highway noise and the rumble of the streetscape. Child development experts and
architectural design professionals should collaborate to provide state-of-the-art solutions that minimize these obstructions to
development and well-being for urban children. For example, sound absorption strategies that utilize tools such as acoustical ceiling,
fabrics and carpet to effectively mask undesirable sound can be incorporated into architectural designs.

There are significant benefits to be gained from thoughtful design for outdoor and indoor physical spaces inhabited and frequented by
children. For example, the physical design of the dwelling unit can enhance the development of children's sensory skills. Their ability
to touch different textures and observe various colors is significant to their experience and understanding of the world around them.
Colors can help to define spaces for various activities making them attractive and visible for all children by turning drab spaces into
vibrant play areas. Outdoor play areas intended for children between the age of 3 and 12 can help in the development of fine and gross
motor skills and balance coordination skills. Physical activities such as grasping, throwing and catching, balancing, pushing and
pulling, twisting, skipping, climbing and jumping are important for the development and well-being of children. Play and learning
spaces should have natural and built features (e.g. trees and plants) that connect them to nature and physical features such as monkey
bars and geometric shapes that stimulate and facilitate physical activity.

Further, research suggests that the use of outdoor spaces can be encouraged by co-locating parent fitness opportunities alongside
children's activity spaces and providing views to the landscaped outdoor from physical activity spaces through large windows.
Similarly, windows located between public corridors, children's playrooms, and fitness rooms can promote greater awareness of these
physical activity spaces and allow adults to visually oversee their children’s play while engaging in physical exercise. As well, easy
access to stairs in residential buildings provides a healthy alternative to the elevator. Color coded signage and visibly accessible stairs
can be a venue for physical activity and increase opportunities for moderate to vigorous physical activity for children in the building.

In New York City, the winter months provide a unique set of challenges. Indoor spaces within high-rise buildings that have large
windows overlooking the landscaped outdoors and/or the streetscape, and furnished with age-appropriate furniture help to facilitate
children’s socialization activities. For example, the provision of a dedicated room with soft mats, crayons, and construction paper
where children can meet when outdoor physical communal activities are restricted is a great way to fulfill children's need for physical
activity spaces. Thus, using physical design to enhance children’s long-term development and maintain their well-being.

Conclusion

Living spaces for children in urban environments should be designed to support their cognitive, social and physical development.
Physical activity plays a vital role in allowing children to test many different and important developmental skills. Imaginative use of
material can bring spaces to life, particularly where there are large floors and wall areas for the creation of different degrees of
transparency. Allowing light to travel through a building presents opportunities to make children more aware of active outdoor
spaces. Approachable spaces that one can see into can encourage and stimulate activity. It is important, then, that child development
experts engage and collaborate with architects and designers to provide new ways to better aid children's development, mental health,
and well-being. In like manner, architects and architecture can help promote and support the cognitive and social development of
children which enhances the ultimate meaning of a building beyond mere architecture.

2. Children view people's behavior, psychological characteristics as shaped by environments

A new study has found that 5- to 6-year-olds view people's environments, not their skin color, as the most important determinant of
their behavior and psychological characteristics. These findings contradict the idea that views of race that are known to lead to
prejudice -- such as believing that race naturally divides the world into distinct kinds of people -- inevitably develop early in
childhood. The study also found that the extent to which children endorsed such beliefs varied by the environments in which they were
raised, especially exposure to people of different racial-ethnic backgrounds in their neighborhoods.

The study, by researchers at New York University (NYU) and the University of Amsterdam, is published in the journal Child
Development.

"Our findings suggest that beliefs about race develop over time and in response to particular environments," explains Tara M.
Mandalaywala, a postdoctoral fellow at NYU who led the study. "And that these beliefs vary for children of different backgrounds."

Researchers looked at 203 Black and White 5- and 6-year-olds living in New York City and 430 Black and White adults from across
the United States. They asked respondents about whether they saw skin color as something that could be inherited, and whether they
believed that race determines what people will grow up to be like (e.g., how smart, nice, or athletic they will be). Previous research
has not assessed young children's beliefs about the extent to which race determines a person's behavioral and psychological
characteristics. The study also measured the demographic composition of children's neighborhoods.

The researchers found that children viewed skin color as something that could be inherited, but did not endorse the types of beliefs
that contribute to stereotyping and prejudice in adults: They expected that a person's behavioral and psychological properties would be
determined by the environment in which he or she was raised, not by inherited race.
Children's beliefs about race depended on their exposure to diversity. In particular, children who lived in racially homogeneous
neighborhoods held stronger beliefs that race determined behavior than children in more diverse neighborhoods, suggesting that such
beliefs are shaped by the environment.

"Our research suggests that beliefs about race that contribute to prejudice take a long time to develop -- when they do -- and that their
development depends to some extent on the neighborhoods in which children grow up," says Marjorie Rhodes, professor of
psychology at NYU, who coauthored the study. "An important question our study raises is whether such attitudes in children are
responsive to exposure to diversity in child care and school settings as well as to diversity in neighborhood environments."

3. Observations of Children’s Interactions with Teachers, Peers, and Tasks across Preschool Classroom Activity Settings

his descriptive study examined classroom activity settings in relation to children’s observed behavior during classroom interactions,
child gender, and basic teacher behavior within the preschool classroom. 145 children were observed for an average of 80 minutes
during 8 occasions across 2 days using the inCLASS, an observational measure that conceptualizes behavior into teacher, peer, task,
and conflict interactions. Findings indicated that on average children’s interactions with teachers were higher in teacher-structured
settings, such as large group. On average, children’s interactions with peers and tasks were more positive in child-directed settings,
such as free choice. Children experienced more conflict during recess and routines/transitions. Finally, gender differences were
observed within small group and meals.

The implications of these findings might encourage teachers to be thoughtful and intentional about what types of support and
resources are provided so children can successfully navigate the demands of particular settings. These findings are not meant to
discourage certain teacher behaviors or imply value of certain classroom settings; instead, by providing an evidenced-based picture of
the conditions under which children display the most positive interactions, teachers can be more aware of choices within these settings
and have a powerful way to assist in professional development and interventions.

Recent reports have suggested that young childrens’ attendance in classroom-based preschool programs has dramatically increased,
with nearly 1.1 million children attending public preschool programs during the 2007–2008 school year (Noel, Sable, & Chen, 2009).
Preschool is viewed as an important way to prepare young children for elementary school (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann,
2001). Previous research has emphasized the importance of children’s early competencies for later school success, including social
relationships, self-regulation (e.g., attention) during interactions with materials, and language development (e.g., Blair, 2002;
Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Duncanet al., 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd, 2005; Wasik, Bond, &
Hindman, 2006). It is now well-established that these important early childhood skills and abilities develop within interactions
between the child and context (Ladd, 2005; Pianta & Walsh, 1996), including interactions with adults, peers, and learning
activities/materials within early education classrooms (Downer, Booren, Lima, Luckner, & Pianta, 2010). Young children learn
through a wide range of interactions across the school day, and their competence or adjustment is best indicated by the nature and
quality of these interactions, underscoring this as an important indicator childrens’ readiness or ability to successfully transition to
school environments (Lara-Cinisomo, Fuligni, Ritchie, Howes, & Karoly, 2008; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). One component of
children’s classroom experiences that is not well understood is the extent to which activity settings (e.g., large group, free choice,
meals, etc.) may support or constrain certain patterns of interactions. It is important to understand the connection between activity
settings and children’s interactions to shed light on the classroom as a context for learning opportunities.

The link between the classroom context and specific children’s behavior is complex (Carta & Greenwood, 1985; Gump, 1967; Kontos
& Keyes, 1999; Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002; Rimm-Kaufman, La Paro, Downer, & Pianta, 2005; Rimm-Kaufman
& Pianta, 2000), in part because it is not always unidirectional. Early learning occurs within dynamic contexts that are interconnected
and mutually dependent (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000), and through social processes that include
resources and people (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Loewenberg-Ball, 2003; Tseng & Seidman, 2007). In other words, children’s behaviors
are contextually-bound, and may be better understood by considering the educational contexts in which they occur. The organization
of activity settings (e.g., large group, free choice, meals, etc.) is largely a classroom feature that teachers use intentionally to structure
children’s time throughout the preschool day, and can play a major role in how children practice skills, develop, and successfully
transition into elementary school (Piantaet al., 2005; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Previous research suggests that children who have
difficulty engaging in structured classroom tasks and interacting with their peers have later social difficulties and poorer achievement
scores (Bulotsky-Shearer, Fantuzzo, & McDermott, 2008). Furthermore, children’s experiences in certain classroom activities have
been linked to academic performance and behavior several years later (Montie, Xiang, & Schweinhart, 2006).

In preschool, classroom activity settings are an important aspect of the learning environment for young children. Together, these
findings emphasize the importance of examining the structure (i.e., organization of activity settings) of early childhood classrooms and
underscore the need to understand the situational demands of the environment in relation to children’s interactions. The purpose of the
current study is to take a naturalistic view of the classroom in order to provide detailed information about children’s interactions in
activity settings, which teachers could then use to be thoughtful and intentional about what types of support and opportunities to
provide that can meet the individual needs of children across the array of classroom contexts. The current study examines the extent to
which children’s preschool classroom interactions with teachers, peers, and tasks vary across activity settings (i.e., large group, free
choice, meals, etc.) and whether patterns of variation differ based on child gender and basic teacher behavior.

Eco-behavioral Approach to Understanding Classroom Interactions

For decades, researchers have acknowledged the role of the environment in children’s development in terms of nested systems,
suggesting that understanding children’s capacity to engage directly with activities, both with and without regulation by teachers, is
fundamental to education (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Gump, 1967). Towards this, the eco-behavioral approach involves a careful study of
the co-occurrence of behaviors and contextual factors that are essential when assessing children’s readiness or ability to successfully
transition to school environments (Carta & Greenwood, 1985). Children’s developmental contexts are embedded in a hierarchy of
proximal relationships, such as with peers and teachers, that are nested within larger systems like the classroom and school
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). To illustrate this point, refer to Figure 1, where the focus is how a child interacts with teachers, peers, and
tasks within activity settings in an early childhood classroom. It is through interactions, embedded within proximal (e.g., activity
settings) and more distal systems (e.g., preschool classroom), that development occurs over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006;
Carta & Greenwood, 1985).
Related to the eco-behavioral approach, Gump (1975) described children’s physical environments as having both a physical milieu
and a program, suggesting that most contexts have an agenda or regime that influences or affects children’s behavior. The milieu
represents the area or facility (circumjacent to the behavior), whereas the program is a procedure or way of doing things (Barker,
1968; Gump, 1975). Using an eco-behavioral approach allows researchers to identify properties in the environment, such as the milieu
and program, which are associated with variations in children’s behavior. The current study, as illustrated by Figure 1, examined
classroom activity settings in a way that captured both the milieu and the program of early education classrooms. For example, large
group activity settings were defined both by the number of children involved (greater than 6) and by the fact that the children were
expected to engage together in a shared activity organized by the teacher, such as listening to a story or singing a song. Utilizing this
ecological approach provided an opportunity to learn more about the role of proximal classroom contexts in children’s patterns of
interactions.

Importance of Children’s Observed Classroom Interactions

Research suggests children’s interactions with teachers, peers, and tasks are critical to their academic and social outcomes (Buhs,
Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Downer et al., 2010; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007; Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Grimm, & Curby, 2009). Young
children’s relationships with teachers and peers significantly predict school success: children who have warm, positive relationships
tend to have higher achievement, lower levels of internalizing behavior, and higher social competence than children whose
relationships are characterized by conflict (Bierman, Torres, Domitrovich, Welsh, & Gest, 2009; Konold & Pianta, 2005; O’Connor &
McCartney, 2007; Palermo, Hanish, Martin, Fabes, & Reiser, 2007; Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennet, 1997; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004).
Research has also found that preschool children who are persistent, attentive, and self-reliant during learning tasks tend to have higher
academic achievement than other peers (Fantuzzo, Perry, & McDermott, 2004; McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000). Clearly,
children’s interactions with teachers, peers, and tasks in early childhood are key precursors of later academic and social success, and
in previous research these interactions have only been linked across a select few classroom activity settings. Research is needed that
provides a comprehensive and detailed set of behavioral descriptors across classroom interactions that map onto or co-vary with the
classroom activity settings’ milieu and program. In doing so, it may be possible to link observable behavior during interactions with
properties of classroom environments that support or inhibit development.

One way of assessing child behaviors and the classroom environment is through observations. Many researchers agree that naturalistic
observations provide an ecologically valid approach to assessing children’s behavior (American Educational Research Association
[AERA], 1999; Kontos & Keyes, 1999; Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2006; Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004). Observational approaches,
which focus on children’s responses to situational demands, allow researchers to examine how children calibrate their behavior in
classroom interactions overtime (Volpe, DiPerna, Hintze, & Shapiro, 2005), rather than defining competence in terms of the presence
or absence of a specific, isolated behavior. The current study therefore investigates the classroom context by observing children’s
interactions with teachers, peers and tasks during multiple cycles across the school day and capturing information about the classroom
activity settings that may vary from moment to moment. This represents a child-centered approach that considers both teacher and
child behaviors in the classroom context and allows for children’s behavior to be observed across multiple settings throughout the day.

Classroom Interactions across Activity Settings

Early research suggests that children’s behavior varies depending on classroom activity setting (Gump, 1967). Recent studies have
examined the amount of time children spend in activities settings, suggesting that most of the preschool day is spent in free choice,
teacher-assigned activities and meals/routines (Early et al., 2010). For the purposes of the current study, children’s interactions with
teachers, peers, and tasks across activity settings will be investigated, as well as the role of basic teacher behavior (i.e., presence and
direction) and child gender.

Patterns of classroom interactions

Some observational work has been done to determine the ways in which children’s interactions with teachers, peers, and tasks vary
systematically from one setting to the next. For example, it appears that children interact most frequently with teachers during whole-
group, teacher-structured time (Pianta et al., 2005). For peer interactions, children spend a significantly greater proportion of time in
social interaction during play activities (e.g., play with toys or pretend play) than any other activities (Odom & Peterson, 1990).
Similarly, Innocenti and colleagues (1986) reported that peer interaction occurred more frequently in free play than in other, more
teacher-directed activities. For task related behaviors, children were more likely to be engaged in a task with individually targeted
interactions than in more group-oriented settings (McWilliam, Scarborough, & Kim, 2003), and similarly off-task behavior was
reduced when in whole-class teacher-directed settings (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2005). Other research suggests that children have more
complex interactions with objects during activities that present more of a cognitive demand on the child, such as engaging in goal-
directed problem-solving or systematic experimentation during free choice settings (Kontos, Burchinal, Howes, Wisseh, & Galinsky,
2002; Kontos & Keyes, 1999).

Basic teacher behavior

The literature clearly points to a set of complex teacher behaviors that contribute to student learning (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta et
al., 2005; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004), but there is also evidence that simple, basic actions by the teacher can support or inhibit
children’s experiences across activity settings. For example, Tomes (1995) found that dramatic play areas, such as those commonly set
up during free choice or center time, are not enhanced by teacher presence; whereas other areas, like the library during a structured
time, were significantly enhanced by the teacher presence. Other research has also examined teacher behaviors as they initiate or
direct interactions across contexts in free choice settings, suggesting that some teacher behaviors may influence children’s interactions
(Harper & McCluskey, 2003). The current study isolates two basic teacher behaviors, and examines the extent to which a teacher’s
presence (or availability), as well as the degree to which they direct an activity, contribute to variation in a child’s experience with
different activity settings.

Gender differences

Research suggests that preschool children in the same classroom may have very different experiences, based in part on characteristics
of the children themselves (Dobbs & Arnold, 2009). In particular, children’s gender may be related to their classroom interactions
across activity settings. Howe and McWilliam (2001) examined peer arguments across various activity contexts and found that boys
consistently displayed more dominance in arguments, except during dynamic play (a free choice setting). Other research has examined
more positive behaviors with peers, suggesting that boys and girls tend to act similar within various classroom settings (Anderson,
Hilton, & Wouden-Miller, 2003; Carpenter & Huston-Stein, 1980; Farran & Son-Yarbrough, 2001), and taking a slightly different
view, portions of time spent in settings rarely differ by gender (Early et al., 2010).

Study Aims

The goal of the current study was to examine a complete picture of young children’s interactions in the classroom (with teachers,
peers, and tasks) and the degree to which children experience more positive interactions across certain activity settings (such as large
group, free choice, meals, etc.). The aim was to observe children’s behaviors during the settings in which they occurred, in order to
provide descriptions of contextual factors alongside ratings of behavior (Carta & Greenwood, 1985). This approach focuses on the
likelihood of children’s behaviors co-occurring with environmental conditions or factors, providing a more detailed picture of what
happens in preschool classrooms. The current study provides a novel observational approach and design that allows for multiple
observations on each child in order to examine patterns of behaviors across and within classroom activity settings, and how these
relate to the child’s gender and basic teacher behaviors. This study had three specific objectives: 1) to document the distribution of
children’s time and basic teacher behaviors (i.e., presence and direction) across activity settings; 2) to identify patterns in children’s
interactions with teachers, peers, and tasks across classroom activity settings; and 3) to determine whether patterns of children’s
interactions within classroom activity settings varied by gender.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 164 children from the central region of a mid-Atlantic state (see Table 1 for child, teacher, and classroom
characteristics). Complete data were available for 145 children (19 were absent for one of the classroom visits), and it is these 82 girls
and 63 boys who were included in the current analyses. Fifty-five of the participating children were three years old at the time of data
collection, 73 were four, and 16 were five(one missing date of birth). The majority of children were White(91%), with the second
largest group being African American (5%). The sample of participating children was similar in family (i.e., maternal education,
family income, race/ethnicity) and classroom (i.e., teacher age, teacher education) demographic characteristics to the children who
were excluded from analyses due to incomplete observation data, except that participating children tended to be in smaller classrooms
than excluded children

4. Treatment of Disruptive Behavior Problems in Children – What Works?

Parents and teachers often wonder how to discipline a child with behavior problems. Although some children truly have challenging
behaviors regardless of what strategies we try, many children just need to have the adults in their lives make changes in the way they
react, respond, or interact with them.
We all know that healthy children sometimes argue, are aggressive, or act angry or defiant around adults. We also know that dealing
with those behaviors is a typical part of parenting. But for some families, when this kind of behavior goes beyond typical, causes
stress, disruptions, and problems with getting along, it can become a disruptive behavior disorder. Getting the right treatment early is
key, and families need help finding what works and what’s right for them.

When disruptive behavior becomes a disorder

Occasional, mild disruptive behavior is part of healthy development. At different times in their development, children may act out
because they want to make their wishes known or are learning to become more independent. So, a toddler may have a tantrum or a
teenager may be argumentative as they are working to learn new skills.

A behavior disorder may be diagnosed when disruptive behaviors are uncommon for the child’s age at the time, persist over time, or
are severe. Because disruptive behavior disorders involve acting out and showing unwanted behavior towards others, they are often
called externalizing disorders. This kind of behavior negatively impacts the child and the people around them.

Disruptive behavior disorders, such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, can cause problems for the child, such as
with getting along with parents and siblings, making and keeping friends, and getting in trouble in school. They can make children feel
bad about themselves. Having a disruptive behavior disorder can put children at risk for long-term problems including mental
disorders, violence, and delinquency.

It’s not always easy to know exactly when disruptive behaviors have gone on long enough or are severe enough to receive a diagnosis.
And particularly for younger children it can be difficult to know whether the disruptive behavior might have to do with other
conditions like ADHD or anxiety. If you are a parent with concerns, talk to your doctor about getting a careful evaluation by someone
who is trained in children’s development and mental health.

Getting the right treatment

The good news is that there are approaches to treatment that are effective and improve children’s behavior. Recent research looked at
different approaches for treating disruptive behavior problems in children up to age 12 years and found the best evidence was for
parent behavior therapy, when delivered either as group therapy or individually with child participation. Read more about this
research review. Parent behavior therapy is sometimes also called Parent Training in Behavior Therapy, Behavior Management
Training for Parents, or Behavioral Parent Training.
Parent behavior therapy means that parents work with the therapist on skills to help them manage their child’s behavior in a way that
works for that particular child. When you take part in parent behavior therapy, you can learn new approaches or improve your current
approaches to

 create enough structure in your child’s life,

 provide the right feedback at the right time to reinforce good behavior,

 provide consistent and effective discipline, and

 strengthen your relationship with your child through positive communication.

Another good thing is that you don’t have to be sure whether your child has a disorder before you can use parent behavior therapy.
Many of the programs that work for children with diagnosed behavior problems have also been successful in preventing behavior
disorders. And they work for children with ADHD. Even if you feel that your child’s behavior isn’t all that different from what’s
expected, but you would like some help and support, a skilled therapist can help you fine-tune your parenting skills. Parents who
receive this type of training often report feeling more confident and less stressed.

Finding what works for your family

To get help from someone with the right kind of experience, look for a therapist who focuses on training parents. Psychologists, social
workers, and licensed counselors can provide this kind of training to parents. Some therapists will have training or certification in a
program that has been proven to work in children with behavior problems. Here is what to expect from the proven programs:

 Parents typically attend eight or more sessions with a therapist.

 Sessions may involve groups or individual families.

 The therapist meets regularly with the family to review their progress, provide support, and adjust strategies as needed to
ensure improvement.

 Parents practice with their child during or between sessions.

There are probably approaches that don’t involve parent behavior therapy which can work well for individual families, but we don’t
have enough evidence to be sure.

Many skilled therapists don’t follow specific training manuals, but use behavior therapy techniques to create an approach that is
individualized for each family, which can also be effective

Here are some questions to ask when looking for parent behavior therapy:

Does this therapist

 Teach parents skills and strategies that use positive reinforcement, structure, and consistent discipline to manage their child’s
behavior?

 Teach parents positive ways to interact and communicate with their child?

 Assign activities for parents to practice with their child?

 Meet regularly with the family to monitor progress and provide coaching and support?

 Re-evaluate and remain flexible enough to adjust strategies as needed?

Therapists may be found through professional association directories or through health insurance provider directories. You can review
the therapist’s online profile or call and ask the therapist to describe their approach to treating disruptive behavior disorders.

5. Child Care and Its Impact on Young Children’s Development

Introduction

As the labour force participation rates for mothers of young children have risen over the past few decades, so has the use of child care,
including both child care centres and family child care homes. A substantial majority of young children now regularly experience
child care prior to their entry into school: rates of care for preschool-aged children are now higher than for infants and toddlers. Recent
estimates indicate that nearly two-thirds of all 3- to 5-year-old children in the United States attend some form of regular child care
prior to kindergarten.1 Given these high child care usage rates, both parents and professionals have sought to understand the impact of
these experiences on children’s cognitive and social development.
Subject

Because children’s outcomes are influenced by the multiple environments they encounter,2 including both family and child care
settings, there has been growing interest in research about the effects of child care experiences on children’s development. Moreover,
the reported average quality of child care in the US falls short of the standards recommended by early childhood professionals,3-6
leading to concerns about how the quality of such environments affects children’s development. Coupled with the widespread interest
in promoting children’s school readiness skills, a number of research studies have examined the extent to which variations in the
quality of preschool child care experiences influence children’s cognitive and social skills during the preschool years, during the
transition to school, and into the elementary school years. Examination of the quality of child care has weighed a variety of factors,
including classroom practices (eg, materials, activities, daily organization), teacher–child relationships (eg, teacher sensitivity, warmth
and closeness of the relationship with the child), and teacher qualifications (eg, education and training levels).

Problems

One difficulty with examining the impact of child care quality is the issue of family selection factors. Families choose the child care
they use, and families with differing characteristics may choose different types and quality of care. In particular, studies have
suggested that socio-economically advantaged families tend to choose higher quality care for their children. 7-10 Therefore, it may not
be possible to completely separate the developmental effects of child care quality from the effects generated by family factors. While
more recent studies have adjusted statistically for these family selection factors, they may underestimate the effects of child care
quality when the two are highly correlated.

A second difficulty in this area of research is the need for longitudinal studies which also include varying levels of child care quality
and representative samples of adequate size in order to examine the longer-term effects of child care quality on children’s
development. While a few studies do exist (most notably, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of
Early Child Care; and the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers Study), the expense and complexities of
undertaking this type of research limit the availability of such data.

Research Context

Evidence regarding the effects of preschool child care on children’s development has been derived from two distinct areas of research
— early intervention programs for children at risk, and typical community child care. Whereas several studies have explored the
longitudinal effects of early intervention programs, few have examined the effects for children attending community child care
programs as they make the transition from preschool to elementary school. Several studies of early intervention programs have found
long-term positive effects on children’s cognitive development and academic achievement that last until the third or fourth grade, and
even longer into adolescence and adulthood for broader indicators of school success, such as retention in grade, special education
placement, total years of education, and intellectual functioning.9-15 These early intervention programs were generally high quality,
very intensive, model demonstration programs, and while these studies clearly show lasting positive effects of providing such
programs in the preschool years, they do not reflect the typical experiences of most children in child care.

A second area of research has examined the effects of the typical community child care programs utilized by families, which may vary
widely in the quality of experiences provided. More specifically, substantial research literature has developed over the past two
decades examining the effects of preschool child care quality on children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. Research
studies have included child care programs selected from those existing within the local communities sampled, as opposed to the model
demonstration programs included in the early intervention studies. The strongest evidence has been gathered from studies examining
the effects of child care quality after controlling for differences in child or family background characteristics, such as socioeconomic
status, maternal education, family structure, gender, or ethnicity, with a view to allowing for differences related to both the selection
of child care and to children’s outcomes.

Key Research Questions

Major research questions in this area include the following:

1. Is the level of child care quality in preschool related to children’s cognitive and social development?

2. How long are the influences of child care quality evident?

3. Are there differential effects of child care quality on developmental outcomes for children from different backgrounds?

Recent Research Results

Studies have been conducted in the US as well as other countries, including Canada, Bermuda, and Sweden, to examine the issues
around the effects of child care quality on children’s development, both in the short-term, during the preschool years, and over the
longer-term, into elementary school. The studies reported below have examined the effects of child care quality after adjusting for
family selection factors, in order to disentangle the relations between the selection of child care of a particular quality or type and the
effects of the child care itself.

Although there are relatively few longitudinal studies, several studies have found positive associations between child care quality and
children’s cognitive development and social competence during the preschool years.3,5,8,16-26 These studies suggest that children who
attend better quality child care during the preschool years demonstrate better cognitive and social skills during this time period, after
accounting for differences in family background characteristics that are also related to children’s development.

A few studies have addressed this issue longitudinally for preschool-age child care, examining the long-term influences of child care
quality on both cognitive and social development. Some studies have found modest, positive associations between preschool child
care quality and children’s school-age cognitive skills.27,28 Fewer long-term associations have been found for social development,
although some studies have found that better quality preschool child care is related to more positive behaviour and fewer problem
behaviours in the early elementary school years.29,30

Although most studies have found influences of child care quality on children’s outcomes, a few have found little effect for either
cognitive or social development during the preschool years,17,30-32 as well as over the longer-term, into elementary school.33,34 The
absence of effects in these studies may be accounted for by sampling issues in some cases (restricted ranges of child care quality
and/or relatively small sample sizes) or by the outcomes measured in others (e.g., very low-frequency behaviours such as social
withdrawal).

Another issue of interest is whether the effects of child care quality are stronger among some groups of children, such as those who
may already be at greater risk for less optimal development. Only a few studies relating child care quality to preschool children
outcomes have examined this question, and fewer have followed children into elementary school. The findings in this area have been
mixed, with some evidence of stronger effects for children at greater risk during the preschool years 20,35-37 and school-age
years,28 although these differences were not found consistently for all outcomes studied. In contrast, other studies have found no
differential effects of child care quality for children at greater risk.21,23 Given the likelihood that children at greater risk may be in
lower- quality care, however, this issue merits further consideration.

Conclusions
The research evidence supports the contention that better quality child care is related to better cognitive and social development for
children. While these effects of child care quality are in the modest to moderate range, they are found even after adjusting for family
selection factors related to both the quality of care and to children’s outcomes. Numerous studies have found short-term effects of
child care quality on children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development during the preschool years. Longer-term effects lasting
into the elementary school years have also been found, although fewer longitudinal studies have been conducted to examine this issue.
Moreover, these results indicate that the influences of child care quality are important for children from all backgrounds. While some
studies have found even stronger effects for children from less advantaged backgrounds (suggesting that this issue may be even more
critical for children already at greater risk for school failure) the findings indicate that children from more advantaged backgrounds are
also influenced by the quality of care.

Implications

As a whole, these findings suggest that policies which promote good quality child care during the preschool years are important for all
children. Other research suggests that good quality care is expensive to provide; it is associated with well-trained and educated staff,
low staff–child ratios, low staff turnover rates, good wages, and effective leadership.3,4,38 Given the high cost as well as the relative
paucity of good-quality care, consideration needs to be given to both the availability and the affordability of care. The most successful
policies will need to take all these factors into account, so that good quality care is a realistic option for all children. Given the high
usage rates of child care during the preschool years, such an investment would seem to be an important path to explore in improving
children’s readiness for and success in school.

6. Child Development in terms of Psychological and Behavioural Growth

Child Psychology

A child’s capacity to learn and absorb new information is beyond amazing. Raising a child, therefore, is a complicated task with
myriad challenges for everyone involved. In today's day and age, with the increasing exposure of parents and policy makers to
developmental psychology and related fields, it has become vital that the classroom be treated as a place where an all-round
development of the children can take place.
Child development loosely refers to the full scope of skills that a child masters over time to become a well-adjusted adult in the
society. These include 5 main areas in which these skills could be divided:

1. Physical or Motor skills: the ability to use their body according to their wish to perform simple tasks, these can fine motor
skills relating to use of fingers to write, draw or build, or gross motor skills where they use their whole bodies to play,
dance, and perform other athletic activities.
2. Social and Emotional skills: the ability to appropriately interact with other people and the learning to master self-control
and self-restraint.
3. Cognitive and Mental skills: the ability to learn new things, remember information and solve problems.
4. Speech and Language skills: the ability to be able to effectively communicate through reading, listening, speaking and
writing.
5. Sensory Awareness skills: the ability to register sensory information and learning appropriate responses to various stimuli.

Learning environment and socialization

Researchers found that a more interactive environment that enables children to experience different colours, textures, materials and
green spaces results to a better performance and learning for children in preschools. It is also stated that these kinds of activities and
environment improves the behaviour of a child towards others including parents and teachers.

A study shows that children are more productive and has an increase in learning when an activity is conducted outside the classroom.
Also, children had an improved social development as they are most likely to cooperate and interact with other children when doing an
activity in free choice. Conversely, activities conducted inside a structured classroom and is given by the teacher has a lower result
compared to activities done outside the classroom.

“Designing the best cities for children involves recognising their right to play as well as learn” TakaharuTezuka (2016) the architect of
Fuji Kindergarten in Tokyo is recognized by his approach in designing a learning facility intended for children to play and to learn as
well. The school has no physical boundaries between outdoor and classrooms and the roof itself is a playground for children. He
intentionally include physical environment such as trees, rocks and other landscapes elements and even designed a playground for
children. This kind of environment engages not only the children, but also the adults as well. The Fuji Kindergarten focuses not only
in producing academically achiever students but also to be skilful in terms on how they should react in their environment. As he
stated, people are capable of adjusting themselves in situation. Also, it improves the quality of their social relationship among
students. It also promotes a bullying-free environment because children are not enclosed in a space where they can feel dominant and
start bringing hierarchy within the classroom.

Basic teacher knowledge

Present school facilities are not the only factor that may affect to growth of a child in terms of learning and cognitive areas. The
presence of teachers in centre time or free choice play situations and approaches in giving an activity is also important. In a study,
conducted by scholars, concludes that the presence of teachers are not visible during free choice settings and play time whereas
during lecture and library time. Also, studies suggest that the behaviour of teachers towards the students influences the child’s
experience and interaction. Teachers need to closely watch for these markers of development to make sure the children meet their
developmental milestones. These developmental milestones are a loose set of skills that most children of a certain age seem to
master at roughly the same time. These act as useful milestones to ensure ideal development.Apart from ensuring that a child is
on the right track, another important aspect of observing the development of children is the early identification of any disorders
that a child might be suffering from.These could be anything from learning disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
to developmental disorders like autism spectrum disorders. Early detection of these can go a long way in helping young children
in learning how to deal with these conditions without shame and loss of confidence.Additionally, it helps to identify and identify
children with special needs

Not every student is going to be able to grasp everything at exactly the same speed.Having identified the needs of individual
students, teachers can plan their lessons accordingly, keeping in mind that they have to engage the brightest mind and carry the
slowest at the same time as well.If a teacher is too slow, there is a likelihood that he/she might lose his/her best student because
the student is too bored. That being said, however, if the teacher goes too fast, he/she might lose his/her slow students because
they cannot keep up with the teacher.A teacher has a very important task of not only educating young minds in worldly
knowledge, but to ensure proper all-around development of every student in the classroom.Teachers are an important and
influential part of a child's development. Suffice it to say that the study of child development is a necessary part of the duties of a
teacher.

Parenting approach
Parents and guardians are also a factor in child’s development. Bad parenting and lack of understanding can lead to serious
behavioural problems in children. A child has a tendency to throw tantrums and teenagers are more likely to be argumentative when
faced with their choice situations. Severe behavioural problems can affect the child’s interaction among parents, teachers, friends and
other people and they are most likely to get in trouble in school. Proper way of delivering disciplinary action and knowing positive
and negative reinforcement are essential in shaping a child and minimize the chance of developing a behavioural problem.

According to the American Psychological Association, parenting practices around the world share three major goals: ensuring
children’s health and safety, preparing children for life as productive adults, and transmitting cultural values (APA, 2018).
Needless to say, these objectives are ambitious. Being a successful parent is no small feat and whether children become
competent, healthy, productive adults depends on a variety of environmental and biological factors. The influences on child
outcomes are numerous, but a wealth of literature indicates parenting practices are an important part of the equation. The extent
to which parenting practices shape behavioral development in children is a complex question and, though we may not be able to
answer it with certainty, we can be certain that parents are important factors in their children’s behavioral outcomes.

Research has found consistent links between parenting and child behavioral adjustment. For instance, a mother’s parenting
behaviors, including the extent to which she displays affection toward and exerts behavioral and psychological control over her
child, when that child is five years of age are linked to later child internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Aunola&Nurmi ,
2005). Internalizing, or emotional, behavior problems often refer to anxiety and depression (Akhter et al., 2011). Externalizing,
or disruptive, behavior problems commonly include attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and conduct problems (Akhter et al.,
2011). These are just a few common behavioral problems that are, in part, shaped by particular styles of parenting.

Authoritarian

The authoritarian parent combines low levels of warmth with high levels of control and employs a strict discipline style
characterized by minimal negotiation with the child, high expectations, limited flexibility, frequent use of punishment, and one -
way communication from parent to child (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritarian parenting has been associated with child outcomes
such as hostility, delinquency, rebelliousness, and antisocial aggression (Baumrind, 1991). Research has also found that a child’s
early experience with excessive parental control tends to correlate with the development of anxiety (Chorpita& Barlow, 1998). It
is possible this anxiety stems from a lack of opportunity to develop autonomy through independent exploration of the environment
(Bowlby, 1977). It has also been proposed that the low warmth typical of authoritarian parenting could be linked to child
depression (Rapee, 1997).

Permissive

The permissive parent exhibits high levels of warmth and low levels of control. He or she acts more like a friend than a parent,
employing a lax discipline style with few rules, little to no expectations, and minimal guidance or direction (Baumrind, 1991).
Parents with this style have a tendency to be very loving and nurturing, but also allow their children to solve problems with out
parental involvement (Baumrind, 1991). In a study of permissive parenting, lack of involvement, lack of follow through, and lack
of confidence in parenting ability were important predictors of child behavior problems reported by both parents and teachers
(Calzada, 2001). Because permissive parents tend to be non-demanding, it becomes much more difficult to control children’s
behaviors and outline boundaries in children’s environments (Baumrind& Black, 1967). Research has found links between the
excessive parental indulgence often found in permissive parenting practices and children’s decreased social competence and
academic achievement (Chen et al., 2000). Permissive parenting has been linked to bossy, dependent, impulsive behavior in
children, with low levels of self-control and achievement and a failure to learn persistence and emotional control (Baumrind,
1967).

Uninvolved

The uninvolved parent combines low levels of warmth and low levels of control, and does not utilize any particular discipline
style (Baumrind, 1991). He or she often displays little interest in being a parent. Communication is limited, nurturance is low,
and the child, generally, has an excessive amount of freedom (Baumrind, 1991). Because the uninvolved parent is neither
demanding, nor responsive, and because young children are highly dependent on parental structure and support, uninvolved
parenting has been associated with behavioral problems and depression in children (Downey & Coyne, 1990). Additionally,
adolescents who are exposed to uninvolved parenting practices often perceive high levels of rejection and tend to exhibit mor e
externalizing behaviors, aggressive behaviors, delinquent behaviors, hostility, and attention problems (Ruchkin et al., 1998;
Meesters et al., 1995; &Barnow et al., 2002). It is also possible that the effects of uninvolved parenting persist through
adolescence and into adulthood (Nijhof&Engles, 2007). In a study of first year college students, researchers found that
individuals who reported being raised by uninvolved parents showed more internalizing and externalizing problems in reaction to
negative emotions such as homesickness (Nijhof&Engles, 2007). Additionally, these students, generally, coped with problems
less effectively than individuals who reported growing up in a loving and accepting home environment (Nijhof&Engles, 2007).

Authoritative

The authoritative parent displays both high levels of warmth and high levels of control (Baumrind, 1991). Parents in this category
are reasonable and nurturing, set high expectations, explain disciplinary rules clearly, and engage in frequent communication with
their children (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritative parenting has been associated with greater child competence, exceptional maturity,
assertiveness, and self-control (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritarian parents who employ child-centered disciplinary practices, and
who use verbal reasoning and explanations, tend to raise children who display high levels of moral reasoning, markers of moral
conscience, and prosocialbehaviors (Krevans& Gibbs, 1996).

Research has shown that authoritative parenting may be the most effective style, however, it also tends to be the most demanding
in terms of parental energy and time (Greenberger & Goldberg, 1989). It is possible that parents who are living under conditions
of stress, such as poverty, may be less likely to display authoritative parenting behaviors, and more likely to employ less effective
parenting practices. Research suggests parents of a higher socioeconomic status household, are more likely to employ democratic
(Hoffman, 1963) and child-centered (Sears et al., 1957) parenting practices, in contrast to the authoritarian and parent-centered
style that characterizes lower socioeconomic status homes. This would lead to an increased likelihood of raising children who
display internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, which, in turn, is likely to put the family under more stress. This
circular trend has major implications for the future, as it contributes to systemic inequity for families in poverty (Kohen, 1998).
More extensive research is critical to enhancing the field’s current understanding of parenting styles and the role they play in
child behavioral outcomes. An increased understanding of the roots of different parenting practices, may enable the field to
more effectively address the environmental factors that lead parents to adopt less ideal strategies. This research should be
used to guide the development of more effective prevention and intervention programs aimed at fostering adaptive behavioral
development in children. Because parenting programs have been found to demonstrate a large and sustained effect on early
disruptive behavior problems (Comer et al., 2013), it is important to ensure these programs are widely available to at -risk
families, and that these families are aware of their availability. Additionally, parenting programs are typically delivered in a
group format versus individualized therapy, which has been found to be cost-effective, decrease stigma, and promote peer
support (Comer et al., 2013; Gross et al., 2003; Sanders, 1999). It is imperative parents are not blamed for their parenting
practices or for their children’s behavioral outcomes, but are instead given the opportunities and resources they need. Taking
advantage of these resources may help parents employ more appropriate parenting practices and promote the adaptive
behavioral development of their children.

TOPIC 2 : The Effectiveness of Curvilinear Versus Rectilinear in Shaping the Children’s Developmental Capacity

1. Why Our Brains Love Curvy Architecture

People are far more likely to call a room beautiful when its design is round instead of linear. The reason may be hard-wired into the
brain.
When the great architect Philip Johnson first visited the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, designed by Frank Gehry, he started to cry.
“Architecture

is not about words. It’s about tears,” Johnson reportedly said. Something about the museum’s majestic curves moved him at an
emotional level. Many others must get a similar feeling, because the building is usually ranked among the most important in modern
times.

Whether or not Johnson and Gehry realized it, the Bilbao and its swirling façade tapped into a primal human emotional network. Time
and again, when people are asked to choose between an object that’s linear and one that’s curved, they prefer the latter. That goes for
watches with circular faces, letters rendered in a curly font, couches with smooth cushions–even dental floss with round packaging.
Recently neuroscientists have shown that this affection for curves isn’t just a matter of personal taste; it’s hard-wired into the brain.
Working in tandem with designers in Europe, a research team led by psychologist Oshin Vartanian of the University of Toronto at
Scarborough compiled 200 images of interior architecture. Some of the rooms had a round and rectilinear style like this:
Vartanian and collaborators slid people into a brain imaging machine, showed them these pictures, and asked them to label each room
as “beautiful” or “not beautiful.” In a study published earlier this year, they reported that test participants were far more likely to
consider a room beautiful when it was flush with curves rather than full of straight lines. Oblong couches, oval rugs, looping floor
patterns–these features got our aesthetic engines going.

It’s worth noting this isn’t a men-love-curves thing; twice as many women as men took part in the study. Roundness seems to be a
universal human pleasure.

Beauty ratings were just the first step in the study. The researchers also captured the brain activity that occurred when the study
participants in the imaging machine considered the pictures. Turns out people looking at curved design had significantly more activity
in a brain area called the anterior cingulate cortex, compared to people who were looking at linear decorations. The ACC has many
cognitive functions, but one is especially noteworthy in the context of Vartanian’s study: its involvement in emotion.

We prefer curves because they signal lack of threat.

So curved design uses our brains to tug at our hearts. Some of us cry outside great buildings as a result. Some of us reach for another
brand of dental floss. Some of us, beyond all rational judgment, type in Comic Sans font. “Our preference for curves can not be
explained entirely in terms of a ‘cold’ cognitive assessment of the qualities of curved objects,” Vartanian tells Co.Design. “Curvature
appears to affect our feelings, which in turn could drive our preference.”

The Bilbao-sized question is why exactly curves give us a visceral pleasure. Some neuroscientists believe the answer may have
adaptive roots.

Another brain imaging study, conducted several years ago by Moshe Bar of Harvard Medical School, found that viewing objects with
sharp elements–once again, square watches, pointy couches, and the like–activated the amygdala. That’s the part of the brain that
processes fear. Bar and collaborator Maital Neta proposed that since sharp objects have long signaled physical danger, human brains
now associate sharp lines with a threat. Curves, meanwhile, may be seen as harmless by comparison.

“In other words,” says Vartanian, “we prefer curves because they signal lack of threat, i.e. safety.”
There’s a nice clarity to that explanation, but it certainly has some limitations. The most basic of these is that some sharp lines feel
warm and welcoming (see: the New York City skyline, or Ikea furniture) and some curves are plenty scary (see: a rattlesnake, or Nicki
Minaj). Not every straight-versus-curve contest is as clear as knife versus spoon. Culture, context, and familiarity can all influence our
perception of contour.

It’s also critical to point out that just because people have a natural neural affinity for curves doesn’t mean round design is always
superior. If researchers asked people to rate architecture based on functionality instead of beauty, for instance, they might get different
results. (In fact, Vartanian says he’s studying that question next.) The Bilbao in all its sinuous glory may bring tears to the eye, but it
probably took a very rectangular truck to bring construction material to the Bilbao.

2. Straight vs. Curved Lines in Architecture – the Importance of Forms for our Well-being

Loving works of architecture is, in a way, like loving people – some are cute, interesting, not too strange, and appear warm and
friendly. They seem somewhat familiar and are easy to love from the first sight. Then there are others, who make a lousy first
impression – they seem boring and cold, but when you get to know them, they grow on you. Even more, you fall crazily in love with
them.
arnsworth house, designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1951, an icon of 20th century modern architecture; photo by andrewzahn

And this is how I’d describe my love for modernist minimalistic design with its straight lines and rectilinear shapes. It wasn’t until I
learnt about the philosophy behind it, that I started to see it as not boring, but pure; not cold, but honest; and not depressing, but
rather idealistic. In spite of my initaial lack of interest, I eventually fell
in love with it.
However, there’s no guarantee that people will feel good in a home
designed to speak clearly and honestly of its time, a home that’s an
embodiment of the architect’s ideals. Edith Farnsworth’s infamous
lawsuit against Mies van der Rohe spoke very loudly about her
dissatisfaction with what was critically proclaimed to be a masterpiece
of modern architecture. And she wasn’t alone in her criticism. There
were counter-movements to follow modernists aspirations.

Dazki and Read (2011) measured the emotional responses to simulated,

controlled interior settings of living rooms displaying curvilinear lines
of furniture compared with settings displaying rectilinear lines of
furniture. Participants in their study were students were from
design and art programs.
 Rectangular and round kitchen counters; photo by ChalonHandmade

Even though the participants appraised these simulated grayish

environments as generally bland and uninteresting, curvilinear

r forms elicited more pleasant emotions than did rectilinear

forms. Pleasant, unarousing emotions such as feeling pleased,

peaceful, contented, calm, and relaxed were associated with the

curvilinear settings more. The unpleasant, arousing emotional

states such as feeling stressed, annoyed, and angry were associated

more with the rectilinear settings

Rectangular and round kitchen counters; photo by ChalonHandmade A living room with more curvilinearity

A living room with more curvilinearity; photo by Posh Living, LLC

Interiors with increased curvature were rated as more pleasant, elevating, relaxing, friendly, personal, safe, mysterious, complex, and
feminine. Madani Nejad also compared graduate architecture students’ responses to non-architecture students responses. It turned out
that the correlation between curvature and positive appraisal was much weaker in the architecture students’ sample for all variables
except the Masculine-Feminine variable for which the architect group had a higher correlation. This result suggests that future
architects see curvilinear forms dominantly as feminine. Their experience, knowledge and familiarity with straight lines could explain
the smaller difference in response to straight and curved lines, compared to relatively big difference in lay-people sample. However,
curvature still elicits more positive responses for them.
3. Curvy or Not?

Imagine this: You're standing in the furniture store staring at a pair of sofas, both of which are demanding to come home with you.
One is curvier than the other--its legs are bowed a little bit, its stuffing is a little plumper, and its armrests curvaceously cuddle your
forearms. The other sofa has been crafted by someone who owns a protractor; its lines are pretty much straight and meet at carefully
pre-determined angles (we are talking upholstered furniture here, there is a limit to any sort of precision). Both sofas are covered in the
same fabric and are equally comfortable to sit on.

Which sofa should you choose?

As usual, it depends.

Recent research done with images shows that we think that furniture with an organic look, and rounded forms, is more relaxing than
angular designs. The cited investigation, by Dazkir and Read ("Furniture Forms and Their Influence on Our Emotional Responses
Toward Interior Environments," Environment and Behavior), is just the last in a long line of studies indicating that people generally
feel differently about things that are rounded as opposed to angular.

Silvia and Barona in 2009, for example, found that when people are looking at objects that are equally symmetrical, balanced, and
typical (so novelty isn't the deciding factor), rounder shapes were preferred to angular ones. Chang and Wu in 2007 had similar
responses when they asked people about images of products, some with soft and curved surfaces and some in the opposite camp. In
2006, Bar and Neta published a study showing that objects and patterns with curved features are preferred to those with pointy ones
and sharp angles.

Because most of us plan to relax in and enjoy spaces where couches normally go (living rooms and family rooms, for example), the
curvier couch is starting to look like the way to go.

But it is not so simple. Our outlook on the world comes into play here and distorts the aforementioned generalizations. Research
decades ago found that people who feel more strongly that fate plays a large role in the direction that life takes are more likely to
prefer curved architectural elements while people who feel more in control of their own destiny go for rectilinear ones. Working in
2006, Zhang, Feick, and Price found that when people see themselves as generally independent of others, they find angular shapes
more attractive while people who perceive themselves as primarily interdependent have the same sorts of feelings about more rounded
shapes.

There are other implications for lines and shapes beyond home design and furniture selection. Vikas Mittal, a professor at Rice
predicts that the new Starbuck's logo, which is curvier that the old one, should help in overseas markets. He is quoted in a Rice press
release: "When angular logos were changed into rounded logos, they were more acceptable in interdependent and collectivist cultures-
-often found in Asian countries, such as India and China--than in Western countries, which tend to have a more independent or
individualistic culture."

A space filled with curvy things would be oppressive, just like one in which all lines and planes meet at right angles. Select the sofa
that seems to be the best fit with your outlook on life. And remember, as you choose sofas and wallpapers for your home or office,
surfaces and lines that curve or meet at right angles do matter.

3. Effect of Curvilinear Design

4.

“We prefer curves because they signal lack of threat”

This statement sums up why people prefer curve designed products over rectilinear ones. It applies both in design of accessories such
as watches, and even dental floss. People has a natural love for things and even spaces that uses oval shape couches, round ceiling and
looping floor patterns. It improves their mood and comfort as they see this kind of design as soft. Curvature also affects our feelings
and drives our preferences. On the contrary, people find rectilinear design or designs with sharp edges as it imposes physical danger
and threat. Studies suggest that preferences in curved design is not a personal choice but rather hard-wired into the brain. They also
conducted surveys as to what they prefer in terms of interior design between curvilinear and rectilinear approaches. Curve designed
spaces scored the highest as people refer them as beautiful and that these spaces are more comfortable just by looking at the picture.
But this study does not generalized people’s choice in terms of design. There are still users that prefer rectilinear as they see it as more
welcoming and warm. Curvilinear forms elicited more pleasant emotions than did rectilinear forms. Pleasant, unarousing emotions
such as feeling pleased, peaceful, contented, calm, and relaxed were associated with the curvilinear settings more. The unpleasant,
arousing emotional states such as feeling stressed, annoyed, and angry were associated more with the rectilinear settings. Interiors
with increased curvature were rated as more pleasant, elevating, relaxing, friendly, personal, safe, mysterious, complex, and
feminine. MadaniNejad also compared graduate architecture students’ responses to non-architecture students responses. It turned out
that the correlation between curvature and positive appraisal was much weaker in the architecture students’ sample for all variables
except the Masculine-Feminine variable for which the architect group had a higher correlation. This result suggests that future
architects see curvilinear forms dominantly as feminine. Their experience, knowledge and familiarity with straight lines could explain
the smaller difference in response to straight and curved lines, compared to relatively big difference in lay-people sample. However,
curvature still elicits more positive responses for them.

The interview data showed that some architects believe curved forms are “fun”and “joyful.” A handful of other studies also found
positive results in the same directionwhere data demonstrated such forms to be “serene” and preferred in both 2-dimesionaland 3-
dimensional spaces by a variety of subjects, especially children. To a large extent,this study confirms and compliments these previous
results. It would be logical totheorize that adding curvature to design creates spaces that are felt to be more pleasant,relaxing or
calming, making such spaces (if designed well) joyful and serene.

Designing spaces with features that have the potential to reduce stress is usuallya critical objective of the designers, particularly in
health care facilities. Although verylimited, the results of this study show that curvilinear forms in interior residentialarchitectural
settings are perceived as less stressful (r=0.473). This theory needs muchfurther investigation in other architectural settings to widen
its application inarchitectural design.

TOPIC 3 : Indoor Versus Outdoor : How Built Environment Affects the Childrens’s Behavior

1. Kids and the city: how do you build the perfect space for children? By Lily Brooks

“Designing the best cities for children involves recognising their right to play as well as learn” TakaharuTezuka (2016) the architect of
Fuji Kindergarten in Tokyo is recognized by his approach in designing a learning facility intended for children to play and to learn as
well. The school has no physical boundaries between outdoor and classrooms and the roof itself is a playground for children. He
intentionally include physical environment such as trees, rocks and other landscapes elements and even designed a playground for
children. This kind of environment engages not only the children, but also the adults as well. The Fuji Kindergarten focuses not only
in producing academically achiever students but also to be skilful in terms on how they should react in their environment. As he
stated, people are capable of adjusting themselves in situation. Also, it improves the quality of their social relationship among
students. It also promotes a bullying-free environment because children are not enclosed in a space where they can feel dominant and
start bringing hierarchy within the classroom.

Investigation of the Architectural Aesthetics and Its Impact on the Children in the Psychology of the Child by
HosseinSardariGhasemabad and SiavashRashidiSharifabad

The study is about the perception of different people in terms of Architecture. It talks about the different perspective of people in
aesthetics and space especially on how it is perceive by children. This published work categorized different stages of ages and
characteristicinvestigation with the help of Child Psychology. Also it includes how environment impacts a child’s creative process, in
building its confidence and feelings. This paper also include the importance of a built space intended or designed for children as they
rely on their environment using their five (5) senses: hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling. An environment designed for
children makes them more aware of their surroundings and makes them more familiar as they grow older. Children had different
perspective in terms of aesthetics in a built environment compared to adults as they depend on it in building their personality and
awareness in their environment.
Summary of Findings

Various studies conducted from other countries in different aspects that may greatly affect and influence a child is presented in this
research. These presented data has a great impact on child’s development and growth in terms of behaviour, cognitive and forming
relationship among other people including parents, teachers and other children.