Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46

Third Annnual Internattional Conferrence «Earlyy Childhood Care and Edducation»

Creating New Leaarning Ennvironmeents: Chaallenges for Earlyy

C
Chhildhoodd Develop
pment Architectuure and Pedagogy
P y in Russiia
Tigrran Shmisa*,
* Jure Kotnnikb, Maria Ustinovaa
a
The Woorld Bank, B. Molcchanovka st., 36/1, Moscow, 121069,, Russia
b
Architektura JureKotnik,
J Trg Prekomorskih
P brigaad, 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia

Abstracct

This article observes thee attempts to inttroduce modern international appproaches to kinddergarten designn in the Russian regions
and it aiims to set the disscussion about th he importance off the open, flexibble and child-cenntered spaces, ass well as the creaation of
new leaarning environm ments for the early childhood development syystem in Russia. Specifically, it reviews theoretical
approaches with respecct to the correlaation of the pedaagogy and architecture design, and its influencce on the learniing and
behavioral abilities of the children, itt analyses the current c status off early childhoood developmentt system in Russsia, its
challengges and potentiall implementation n barriers for thee modern reform
ms of the Russiann kindergarten design.
d The authhors pay
a speciaal attention to thee role of the teaccher as the agentt of change and the
t influence of the teacher’s perrception on the reforms
r
implemeentation.
© 2013
© 2014 The
The Authors.
Authors. Pu
Published
ublished by
by Elsevier
Elseevier Ltd.
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selectioon and/or peer-reeview under resp
ponsibility of Ruussian Psychologgical Society.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Russian Psychological Society.
Keywordds: early childhoodd development, kin
ndergarten design, learning pyramid,, new Russian kinddergartens, sciencee-based architecture, open
environm
ments, teachers perrception

1. Background

The early childhood developmeent and preschool education is becoming increasingly

i im
mportant for Russian
R
educatiion. During laast decade thee kindergartenn design has witnessed sevveral changes due to the ongoing o
transforrmations in varrious aspects of
o the contempoorary society, including
i technnological deveelopment, archiitecture
and peddagogy. All thhese changes have
h called for revising the concept
c of learrning environm
ment. Russia is facing

* Corrresponding authorr. Tel.:+7-495-745

5-7000, ext. 2047; fax:+7-495-745-77002.
E-maail address: tshmiss@worldbank.org

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Russian Psychological Society.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.084
 Tigran Shmis et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46 41

these changes with the attempts to support new approaches of designing preschool architecture and learning
environment, as well as to simplify and optimize the overprescribed construction and sanitary standards. At the
same time the country strives for the costs reduction in building of the preschool facilities, which have been
relatively high in comparison with other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
countries. Unfortunately, the interventions and investment programs lack the attention to teachers, although the
teachers are identified as main agents of innovations. Thus, there is a certain demand for studying innovations and
teacher development strategies in a dynamic environment of reformed education system.

1.1. Kindergartens development in Russia: a historical overview

Russia has a long history of Early Childhood Development (ECD) which starts at the late XIX century. The
first public and private kindergartens were opened in 1866 in Saint-Petersburg [1]. At the same time, although
Russia has been following “European trends”, there were differences. The Russian approach to kindergarten
development was initially based on educational interventions which included learning and upbringing [2].
The ECD system was being rapidly developed over the course of XX century: first ECD curricula were
introduced, special research institutions were established, and training and educational institutions for the
teachers and nursery staff were opened across the country. The pedagogical interventions were supported by
construction of the kindergarten buildings in urban and rural areas. A special model designs for kindergartens
with the capacity of 25, 50, 75, 100, 125 and 200 children were developed and during the century replicated
further across the country with small adjustments [3]. It’s important to note, that architectural designs were
strongly influenced by the ideas of hygienists: the desire to reduce contacts of children as a measure to prevent
health diseases led to designing a large number of small group rooms, corridors and separate exits. The principle
of group isolation still defines the kindergarten architecture, as well as pedagogical practices in Russia.
By 1990s the national ECD system became strong and comprehensive: the services were being provided to all
children in need from the nursery till the preschool. Right after the collapse of USSR and the following economic
shocks, that population had experienced, the demand for all existing kindergarten spaces in Russia was not there
anymore. The birth rates went down dramatically during the transition period, which caused the change in the
demand and the existing soviet infrastructure turned out to be excessive. Starting from early 2000s, the birth rates
had recovered and started to boom causing growth of public demand and new social request to the national ECD
system.
Currently the Russian education system enrolls more than 62% of children at ages 0 to 7. The Russian
government has recently addressed the issue of developing ECD systems at regional level [6]. The system is
being reformed in a way to become more child-centered, modern and flexible. A new federal state standard on
preschool education, which was adopted in 2013, is designed to stipulate completely new pedagogical practices
[4]. Moreover, significant interventions to increase enrollment are designed to support infrastructure and equip
the kindergartens with relevant modern technology. However, to increase the number of places simply through
the construction of new kindergartens without introducing long-term policies addressing the ongoing
demographic changes and dynamics can lead to overstaffed and undersupplied kindergartens in the future. Thus,
new innovative approaches for designing preschool architecture have to be introduced.

2. Creating new learning environments

Under innovation in ECD facilities we understand creating open environments with multifunctional and
always accessible equipment. Several authors call for more attention to contemporary architecture as well as to
efficiency of architecture for learning [5,7]. At the same time there are several theories which are connecting the
architecture and learning, hence there is a lack of evidence on connection between particular types of learning
environments and student performance. Overall, there is a notion of the quality learning environment and its
42 Tigran Shmis et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46

positive impact on student performance – here we are talking about minimum standards. For instance, an
improvement in school conditions from extremely bad to good was associated with an increase of approximately
10% of a standard deviation in learning achievement [8].
The majority of the important changes in kindergarten architecture take place in the interior design, while
focus lies also on the sustainable construction, rational material selection and energy efficiency of the facilities
through the whole process from construction to maintenance. The broad selection of international experiences
can be very useful for Russian regions. Still the aim is not merely to copy foreign examples, but to find an
adapted model that would formulate “new Russian kindergarten” - a design response for contemporary pedagogy
challenges of modern Russia.

2.1. Connecting pedagogy with architecture

These transformations can be achieved only with combining together findings in the field pedagogy, children
psychology and architecture. The architecture as a spatial frame for the processes in pre-school education has big
influence on what can happen in kindergarten. Therefore, the several pioneers in the education, e.g. Rudolf
Steiner, have given a special attention to it. Some other researchers, e.g. Bettina Rühm, are saying that the space
is “the third teacher” [9], while Christopher Day points out the environment's ability to influence on the way we
think, the way we feel and the way we act. The environment shapes our habits, our beliefs, values and it can
encourage our physical, mental and social development. Though a big part of the influence is subliminal, it is still
very important [10]. Even Winston Churchill said: “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape
us”, meaning that by using the appropriate design we can easier achieve desirable effects and this is where
pedagogy and architecture should come together in search of quality learning environment.
The focus of the new interior designs can rely mainly on the findings of the “learning pyramid” as introduced
by National Training Laboratories (Bethel, Maine), which identifies the most effective ways of learning [11].

Fig. 1. Learning pyramid as a basis for new educational design (Learning pyramid source: National Training Laboratories, Bethel, Maine)

The larger part of the pyramid advocates an active role of the children in their educational processes.
According to it, the most effective learning can take place in such environment, where children can meet, interact
and therefore learn from each other. It also promotes the spaces, where children can actively participate in their
learning or can even learn on their own. These aspects are the trends of contemporary pedagogy, especially with
the increasing involvement of technology in the kindergartens. As the children are different and they learn
 Tigran Shmis et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46 43

differently, new kindergarten designs should promote the spatial environment, that cater diverse types of learning
from active to calm spaces and from dynamic group spaces to more individual (e.g. resting and reading corners).

Fig. 2. Changes call for the different environment: the transition from the institutional typology (left) into educational landscape
typology(right).

The keywords of contemporary kindergarten design are flexibility, mobility and diversity, because rich
learning environment can benefit children’s ability to play and learn [12]. One of the notable design changes in
comparison to the traditional kindergarten architecture typology in Russia is the avoidance of complex and closed
system of corridors and their replacement with central multi-use space of an open spatial configuration, which
represents the core of every kindergarten and plays the role of the main square in the city [13]. Such central
multi-use hall has to function as an extension of the adjacent playrooms and is a middle way to the next
evolutional phase of contemporary kindergarten, transforming it from a cluster of playrooms into a diverse
learning environment, which promotes active and self-learning. Such change makes kindergartens even less
institutional and brings them closer to the informality of children museums, while we can also find some parallels
with the contemporary office environment, where several companies in creative and “blue chip” industry are
benefiting from the informality of the work environment in the fields of creativity and effectiveness. The de-
institution of the kindergarten is one of the processes that can already be identified in several new facilities.

2.2. The importance of local characteristics: location, climate and culture

Besides the architecture relation to pedagogy in contemporary kindergarten design it is also very important to
address the individual kindergarten specifics in relation to its location, climate and culture. This is especially
important in such big and diverse country as Russia. For example, in the Khanty-Mansyisk Autonomous Okrug
or in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the climate can be identified as the main challenge that determines the
architecture. The long winters, low temperatures and the abundance of snow – all these specific conditions call
for solutions that can provide an answer for these peculiarities. One of the solutions can be an inclined green roof,
especially, if we know that the big part of heat is usually lost through the roof. A green roof is the great insulator,
has good fire protective characteristics, handles the meteor waters, etc., while at the same time can be used as a
slope for sledging or skiing in long winters or as an amphitheater space and additional playground in the summer.
Such site-related approach is converting the weakness of the location into its strength, using architecture as a
catalyst of the process. Due to harsh weather conditions in the exterior, the children spend a lot of time inside of
the building. This condition advocates bigger glassed surfaces of high quality windows in order to allow
receiving as much as possible amount of natural light. In addition to that, designers can turn to another scientific
principle – a “biophilia effect”, which claims that the exposure to the photos of the nature helps in improving the
44 Tigran Shmis et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46

efficiency and well-being of the users. Beside the natural, also a connection with the cultural environment is very
important for the ability to connect kids, teachers, parents and the rest of local community together; making
kindergarten as a community orientated public building, where some spaces can be shared to the benefit of all,
increasing the use of the building. Also a strong attention has to be given to support motoric activities for kids in
specially designed sport halls, as well as through activities in multi-activity halls. According to the studies on
relation of sport activities to brain functions, the physical activity benefits children’s mental achievements and
promoting spaces for physical active kids is very important, due to the ability to increase children’s IQ and
improve their performance [14]. Connecting pedagogical and behavioral science with architecture design has a
great potential that might lead to the innovations in kindergarten architecture. The choice of such approach could
classify Russia among the leading countries in the development of educational design.

2.3. A need for change in Russia

The older approach in Russia was to create a single room per each activity, which transformed a preschool
facility into a labyrinth of corridors and separate rooms. Overall 20% of space is still allocated to the corridors.
An extreme case we worked with was a kindergarten for 120 boys and girls, which had 98 separate rooms inside.
This situation is explained by the current sanitary and fire regulations which are designed to protect children from
the health diseases, to ensure safety and to prevent possible risks. These regulations stipulate the “groups’
isolation” principle, which prevents mixing of children from different groups (usually, one group includes 15 to
30 kids with one or two teachers). In many OECD countries preschools are designed to allow children to
communicate with each other, to have common activities and use maximum space of the kindergarten for their
activities. Moreover, the Russia is the only country in Europe which requires (i) presence of medical staff in the
kindergarten, (ii) daily check of health condition of children at entry, and (iii) principle of “group isolation” at the
same time. Given the strong attention to child health and the importance of child well-being, the last principle has
its limitations. These limitations are related to lack of needed physical development: (i) children have less ability
to run and move, and (ii) the limited size of the room increases the risk of decease spreading. Meanwhile, the
major factor is extreme inefficiency in usage of space and its availability for children: while Danish kindergartens
are usually 40% smaller in overall space, than Russian (~10 sq. m. per child versus ~20 sq. m. per child), so
called “active space” –– the space available for boys and girls at any time –– is up to 4 times more in Danish
preschools, than in Russia (2.5 sq.m. per child in Russia versus 7-8 sq. m. per child in Denmark). Thus, changing
these proportions in Russia would generate tremendous change in learning spaces as well as generate huge
savings for public funds.

3. Implementation barriers

Indeed, the introduction of these important changes to the learning environment may not be an easy process.
On the one hand, through our practice we see a growing interest from the Russian regions to the improve the
quality and efficiency of the ECD and preschool education system through the introduction of innovative designs
in kindergartens infrastructure that are cost and energy efficient to better support pedagogy and learning. For
example, the World Bank is providing technical assistance to the Government of the Kanty-Mansyisk
Autonomous Okrug and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), which includes construction of new kindergartens
applying principles of the openness, flexibility, multifunctional use and flexibility, providing a completely new
environment for the ECD activities and programs, as well as allowing for transformation of the playrooms into
primary school classes in order to address the demographic challenges later during the lifecycle of the buildings.
We see that project implementation process may face different challenges from various angles, e.g. very rigid and
sometimes outdated construction, fire protection and sanitary laws, regulations and norms, high level of
skepticism and conservatism expressed by the architectural and planning specialists, who are afraid to break the
 Tigran Shmis et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46 45

norms and are not interested in implementing changes, very different perceptions of the kindergarten’s
conceptual idea by the main users: children, parents, teachers and administrators.
In our opinion, the most important factor, which can strongly influence the introduction of the new design
ideas are the teaching practices. Designing a new open environment entails, that children feel more relaxed and
independent from the timetable and teaching activities. The usual day in Russian kindergarten is very structured,
as well as the learning activities and games, which are mainly directed by the teacher. The current teaching
practices strongly correlates with existing spatial organization of a kindergarten and define the interaction
between an adult and a child, which sometimes is very formal and includes the frontal (teacher-oriented) forms of
tuition.
Newly adopted federal state standard on preschool education [5] is designed to change this approach and to
stipulate child-centered education in Russian ECD system. This pedagogical document has some
recommendations on how the environment should be organized and is clearly in line with the modern approach to
the learning spaces – transformable, flexible and accessible. We believe it is the first time in Russia when child-
centered reform comes as part of the regulation. We also believe that the teachers with the broad support and less
regulatory burden are becoming more innovative and may change the traditional approach to early education and
stimulation through new learning, using techniques of developmental education (as per Vygotsky) [15], [16].
While the teachers are usually the main agents of change and addressees of regulations, there is still a risk that
the teachers can try to shape and use a new spatial environment in a way they used to do it, which is going to
affect the initial ideas of the project. For example, the teachers may not feel comfortable to work in the open
transparent environment with glass walls and doors and will tend to cover the transparent surfaces in order to
avoid others looking through it. Therefore, there is a strong need to improve the capacity of the teachers and
nursery staff in the kindergartens and provide them with special trainings, explaining how to work with the
children in the flexible and open learning environment and how to adjust their teaching methodologies to it.

4. Conclusions

The early childhood development system in Russia is facing new challenges. There is a strong need in creating
new learning environments, which changes the conventional approach to the kindergarten design and teaching
practices. The contemporary architecture of educational institutions is strongly connected with the pedagogy and
calls for the open, flexible and child-centered spaces, which may better contribute to the learning activities of the
children. The thorough adaptation of the international best practices to the local climate, cultural and landscape
conditions can help Russia to create a concept for “new Russian kindergarten”, which response to modern
challenges. A strong attention to the role of the teacher as a main agent of change and addressees of the
regulations and the detailed analysis of teacher’s perception of the new approaches to the early childhood
education can allow us to facilitate better the reforms implementation.

References
[1] Doshkol`naia pedagogika [Preschool pedagogy]. Ed. by V. I. Iadeshko, F. A. Sohin. Ɇ.: Prosveshchenie;
1978. 429 ɫ.
[2] M. F. Shabaeva, V. A. Rotenberg, I. V. Chuvashev / Ed. by. L. N. Leetvina. Istoriia doshkol`noi` pedagogiki
[History of preschool pedagogy]. Ɇ.: Prosveshchenie; 1989.
[3] By`linkin N.P., Kalmy`kova V.N., Riabushin A.V. i dr. Istoriia sovetskoi` arhitektury` (1917-1954) [History
of Soviet architecture (1917-1954)]. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. M. Stroyizdat; 1985, 256p.
[4] Federal state standard on preschool education Retrieved from
http://www.firo.ru/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/PR_1155.pdf 02.04.2013
[5] Kotnik J., New Kindergarten Architecture. Links, Linksbooks.Net, Barcelona; 2011.
46 Tigran Shmis et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 40 – 46

[6] Bennett, Shmis & Umarov. Early childhood care and education quality initiatives in six Russian Regions : a
comparative analysis in the light of international research and best practice. UNESCO and World Bank,
Moscow; 2012.
[7] Shmis T., Kotnik J., Enhancing the early childhood development system in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia),
Russia: meeting the challenges. CELE Exchange 2011/12, OECD; 2011.
[8] Michaelowa K., Wechtler A. The Cost-Effectiveness of Inputs in Primary Education: Insights from the
Literature and Recent Student Surveys for Sub-Saharan Africa; 2006.
[9] Rühm, B., Kindergärten, Krippen, Horte: neue Architektur - aktuelle Konzepte. Dt. Verl.-Anst., München;
2011.
[10] Day, C. Environment and children: passive lessons from the everyday environment. Architectural
Amsterdam, London; 2007.
[11] Booth, C. Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning: Instructional Literacy for Library Educators. American
Library Association; 2011.
[12] Mark Schneider. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes, National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities, 1090 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4905. Tel: 888-552-0624; Web site:
http://www.edfacilities.org. For full text: http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs; 2002.
[13] Ceppi, G., Zini, M. Children, Spaces, Relations: Metaproject for an Environment for Young Children.
Grafiche Rebecchi Ceccarelli; 2001.
[14] Meyer, A.L., Gullotta, T.P. Physical Activity Across the Lifespan: Prevention and Treatment for Health and
Well-Being. Springer; 2012.
[15] Vygotsky, L.S. Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; 1978.
[16] Crawford, K. Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information era. Educational Studies in
Mathematics. (31); 1996, p. 43-62.