Architecture and the potential of bullying

behavior in elementary school environment

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2230, 040031 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0003699
Published Online: 04 May 2020

N. N. Septriyani, Enira Arvanda, N. R. Kusuma, et al.

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Proxemic as spatial strategy on social space for deaf community

AIP Conference Proceedings 2230, 040030 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0005723

Disability in child-friendly integrated public space (RPTRA)

AIP Conference Proceedings 2230, 040029 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0007458

Collage in architecture and its use as a design method. Reviewing the design of Villa Isola
AIP Conference Proceedings 2230, 040023 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0002304

AIP Conference Proceedings 2230, 040031 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0003699 2230, 040031

© 2020 Author(s).
 Architecture and The Potential of Bullying Behavior in
Elementary School Environment
N. N. Septriyani b) Enira Arvanda a) N. R. Kusuma and H. Isnaeni

Department of Architecture, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

a)
Corresponding author: enira.arvanda28@gmail.com
b
nisrina.septriani@gmail.com

Abstract. Bullying is known for its various negative effects felt by the victims, such as trauma, physical injury, and even
death. Nevertheless, bullying is often considered as a common behavior in various social environments. According to
Day and Midbjer (2007), architecture might have an impact on bullying; scale and unsupervised out- of-sight spaces are
architecture-related issues that could create opportunities to bring out bullying behavior. A previous study by Bulach,
Fulbright, and Williams (2003) found that elementary schools are one of the places where bullying mostly occurs.
Regarding the issue, the purpose of this study is to identify t relation between architecture and bullying potential. The
authors will observe the elementary school environment and analyze its scale, spatial configuration, and spatial quality
using several indicators based on previous research (Day & Midbjer, 2007; Smith & Sharp, 1994; Dudek & Baumman,
2015; Olds, 2001; Lee & Ha, 2016). Findings from this paper suggest that the school building scale, its spatial
configuration, and quality are the key factors to unsupervised space, which might contribute to the possibility of bullying.

INTRODUCTION
Socialization is one of the aspects that affect children's development process. In the school environment, children
begin to socialize with social circles beyond their family unit. Problem and conflict, such as fighting, shyness, and
bullying, may occur, which makes the socialization process not easy for children (Day & Midbjer, 2007). The
previous study by Nemours showed that only 1/3 of the teachers were aware of bullying behavior, while 85% of the
student had seen bullying more than once, and 30% of the students had experienced bullying directly (Migliaccio,
Raskauskas, & Schmidtlein, 2017). Another previous study by Hertinjung in Surakarta found that from 212 4th and
5th-grade elementary school students, 43% of the student has experienced verbal bullying, 34% physical has
experienced physical bullying, and 23% have experienced relational bullying (Hertinjung, 2013).
Bullying can occur in various societies, such as family, peers, and work (Lines, 2007). However, it is essential to
note that elementary school is the place where bullying behavior arises, and awareness is needed to reduce the
potential for bullying (Rapp-Paglicci, Dulmus, Sowers, & Theriot, 2005). Moreover, age is one of the factors
associated with bullying, and bullying most often occurs in children aged 12-13 years (Day & Midbjer, 2007). Thus,
the authors want to do further study about bullying in the elementary school environment and its relation to
architecture.
This study aims to know whether architecture has any influences on bullying possibilities. The objective of this
study is as follows; (1) to analyze how architecture can influence bullying in the elementary school environment
with several aspects based on previous research (2) to discuss what spatial factors and elements that can cause the
potential for bullying to occur.
Piaget describes that children in the age of 7-11 years old experience a stage in their Cognitive Development
called Concrete Operational Thought (Kail, 2016). In this stage, changes occur in children‘s way of thinking. By this
stage, children would think more rationally and could be more focus. Moreover, children also begin to interact with
objects in the environment and socialize more with their peers (Pasalar, 2004). Therefore, in this study, 4th-5th-
grade elementary school students chosen to analyze and interviewed.

Recent Progress on: Energy, Communities and Cities

AIP Conf. Proc. 2230, 040031-1–040031-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0003699
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1989-6/$30.00

040031-1
 The built environment can affect humans, both physically and mentally, as well as in actions, thoughts, and
habits (Day & Midbjer, 2007). Markus and Cameron on Day & Midbjer (2007) stated that spatial relations and
boundaries could significantly influence human behavior and social relationships. Thus, environmental quality is
essential in the socialization process. Socialization in the school environment does not always go well because
children sometimes face some constraints such as shame, possessiveness, selfishness, and bullying; These
constraints might build adverse effects on the social relationship (Day & Midbjer, 2007).
Bullying can be described as intimidation done by individuals or group; not only an act of physical violence, but
also a repetitive act of intimidation both physically and psychologically, that make someone angry, hurt, or upset
(Lines, 2007). Bullying has various effects that can be felt by victims, both physically and mentally (Smith & Sharp,
1994). Bullying in the school environment can be caused by human behavior, such as different power and ability of
students, misunderstanding, and lousy habits (Lines, 2007).
According to previous research, scale and unsupervised out-of-sight space are architectural issues related to
bullying (Day & Midbjer, 2007). Based on earlier studies by Rapp-Paglicci, et al. (2005), Migliaccio, et al. (2017),
Pepler & Craig (2014), & Glover (2000), bullying tends to occur in specific areas in elementary schools, such as
classroom, corridor, and toilet; these locations are named as unsupervised space or bullying hot-spots (see Table 1).
TABLE 1. Room or area where bullying often occurs

Source Migliaccio et al. Rapp-Paglicci et al. Pepler and Craig Glover et al.

Term hot spots hot spots unsupervised space -

Space where bullying - - Space without
Definition often occurs supervision
Playground
Corridor Locker room
Toilet Corridor Classroom Canteen Classroom
Example of Canteen Yard
Playground Corridor Playground
area or room
Toilet

Supervise, according to Dictionary.com, means "keep watch over (someone) in the interest of their or others'
security‫ۅ‬. Supervision on elementary school students can be done by visual aspects. Visibility is a condition where
something can be seen and observed (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, 2016). The previous studies by Lee & Ha
(2015), Migliaccio et al. (2017), & Glover et al. (2000); show that several aspects can affect the visibility of space,
such as lighting, vegetation, opening, and spatial configuration. The characteristic of the elements that can affect
bullying is summarized in Table 2 below (Day & Midbjer, 2007; Smith & Sharp, 1994; Dudek & Baumman, 2015;
Olds, 2001; Lee & Ha, 2017).
TABLE 2. Architectural factors that might contribute to bullying behavior

Architectural AspectsAffecting Elements Specification

x Have access to open space
Layout: x Have various activity in the same building
open plan x 0LQLPL]HĴFURVVLQJµDQG ĴHQGVµ
Circulation
1. Primary circulation: one main entrance and exit
2.Secondary circulation: connection with the main circulation
Unsupervised Space
3. Common area: as a center
Corridor
Dynamic and not rigid, various corridor width
Access
Special lighting
3.Additional furniture and functions as break-out space

040031-2
 TABLE 2. Architectural factors that might contribute to bullying behavior (continued)
Architectural Affecting
Aspects Specification
Elements
Window
Enough window height (enabling supervision)
Additional covering for safety, such as tempered or safety glass.
Opening
Door
Strategically placed; easily accessed
Has opening placed at an adult's height
Natural : Direct sunlight
Artificial :
Lighting Enough lighting for each area. Example: classroom with 700 lux,
corridor with 200 lux
Quantity, quality, and position of the light
1. Various play activities, has a specific function to avoid inactive
Activity edges and blind spot
2. Inclusive to all students but not overcrowding
Scale Minimum wide 5 m
Density 28 students/classroom, 1.8-2.2 m2

METHODS
The method used in this paper is observation and interview. The school observed is a private school located in di
Jalan Nusa Indah, Kecamatan Pancoran Mas, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat. This school was chosen because of its
architectural complexity and scale due to several educational levels offered by the institution. The purpose of the
observation is to find out whether there are characteristic or spatial elements that can encourage bullying behavior.
The indicator for observation can be seen in table 2 above.
Interviews were conducted on the students and the school‘s teacher, precisely 4th-6th-grade elementary school
students with 17 respondents. The selection of 4th-6th-grade elementary school students chooses based on Piaget's
theory that said students aged 7-11 years were able to think using logic and focus more. The purpose of the
interview is to give additional data and to find out whether any other factors besides spatial elements that influence
bullying potential in this school. Also, the school rules did not allow 1st–3rd-grade students to play outside the area
and corridor of their class. The purpose of the interview is to give additional data and finds out whether any other
factors besides spatial elements. Therefore, the only student of grade 4th-6th was chosen to be the respondents.
Interviews were conducted by asking questions such as:
a. Do you often use the corridor, yard or field, and canteen during the break time?
b. Have you ever been treated like being bullied or ridiculed by students from different grades or levels? (verbal
bullying)
c. Have you ever been mistreated from different class levels, such as being beaten or kicked?
d. Are there any spaces or areas in the school environment that make you feel frightened?
The students answer the question and give some explanation about the activities, daily routines, and how they
feel about the corridor, yard or field, classroom, and canteen. Thus, the authors can find out the effect of social
factors such as user's activity on the potential of bullying.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the criteria mentioned in Table 2, there are several locations found in the school environment, which
have the characteristic that fit the unsupervised space criteria, which might be a potential location for bullying (see
Fig. 1).

040031-3
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 1(a). Bullying hot spots potential on the Ground Floor (left) (b). Bullying hot spots potential on the First Floor (right)

Canteen, musala (prayer room for Moslem), and prayer room have the potential to be unsupervised space
because of the position in the school layout and various types of users. According to Day & Midbjer (2007),
separated layout without diverse activities is cDOOHGĴVXEXUELD
ZKLFKPDNHVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\RILQWHUDFWLRQEHWZHHQ
users become low even though these three areas are the communal area (see Figure 2(a)). Besides
ĴVXEXUELDµ OD\RXW FDQWHHQ musala DQG SUD\HU URRPV ORFDWHG DW WKH ĴHQGVµ DQG ĴFURVVLQJµ RI WKH VFKRRO OD\RXW
$FFRUGLQJ WR +DGL  =LPULQJ  WKHUH DUH VRPH VSRWV FDOOHG ĴHQGVµ DQG ĴFURVVLQJµ FDQ EH WKH KRW VSRWV IRU
bullying (see Figure 2(a)). This position also affects the teacher's supervision and visibility because of the distance
between the canteen with the teacher's room.
Vegetation is one of the dominant elements in the school environment that can affect the visibility of space. The
position and dimension of vegetation in the schoolyard might interrupt visibility from the teacher's lounge to
surrounding areas (see Figure 2(b)).

FIGURE 2(a). Configuration of the canteen, musala, and prayer rooms (left) (b). Vegetation configuration on the ground floor
(right)

As a communal area, Canteen, Musala, and Prayer Rooms are used not only by students from the different levels
or grades of education, but also used by the canteen seller, teachers, and school staff. The canteen area used by
students spanning from 4th-grade of elementary school to junior high school. This restriction policy prevents the
canteen from being overcrowded because students from 1st-3rd grade are not allowed to eat at the canteen, and the
rest of the students rarely hanging out there; they only eat or buy some food at the break time. The other factor that
makes the canteen area not overcrowded is the time difference of break time between elementary school and junior
high school.
Musala and Prayer room are used in selected time by the students, such as during the class hours, special event,
or in the prayer times. But the elementary school student and junior high school students use it at a different time. It
makes the interaction between students rarely happen. The difference between students' daily routines narrows the

040031-4
possibilities of socialization and interaction on the communal space. Each student from different grades did not
know each other or play together, and it can increase bullying possibilities because bullying victims and actors
usually in different groups and have opposite characteristics.
There are two types of areas in the canteen; outdoor and indoor. In the indoor canteen area, the food stall area
lacks natural and artificial lighting during the day, which reduces the visibility of this area. The indoor space is also
located further away. Due to the lighting and position of the indoor area, the canteen causes this spot to become
unsupervised. Thus, we can say that on the ground floor, spatial configuration, and spatial qualities in the canteen,
musala, and prayer rooms as the communal area are all little possible to become bullying hot spots (see Figure 3(a)
and 3(b)).

FIGURE 3(a). Lighting distribution on the canteen area (left); (b). The low light area on canteen (right)

Although the toilet is a private space that is not supposed to have high visibility, the toilet must still be
supervised by teachers or adults since it is considered as hot spots for bullying. On the ground floor, the toilet is
located at the end of the building but near to the teacher's room.
On the first floor, the toilet also located at the crossing spot of the building and not in the main circulation of the
school building. Based on the toilet position, only a few people have passed this area (see Figure 4(a) and 4(b)).
Toilet cubicle doors are using opaque materials that make it less supervised, and there is no opening at the bottom
side of the door to indicate where a person who uses this room (see Figure 5).

FIGURE 4(a). Toilet position on the Ground Floor (left); (b). Toilet position on the First Floor (left)

There are no communal areas on the first floor. The primary function of this level is the classroom and
circulation area. Corridor as one of the circulation areas that have additional furniture and function that make the
corridor not only function as a transitional space, but it FDQ DOVR DYRLG ĴLQDFWLYH HGJHVµ ZKHQ QR RQH LV XVLQJ
+RZHYHU WKHUH DUH VRPH VSRWV LQ WKH FRUULGRU ORFDWHG LQ WKH ĴFURVVLQJ
 DQG ĴHQGV
 VHH )LJXUH D 7KXV it is
difficult to supervise, especially the teacher room located on the ground floor, while on the first floor, there are only
administration room and inclusive teacher room.

040031-5
 FIGURE 5. Toilet openings

The end and crossing of the corridor have lower natural lighting than the other corridor spot (less than 200 lux)
(see Figure 6(a) and 6(b)). Thus, the visibility of space is little and causes teacher and staff supervision harder.
There are no activities found at the corridor‘s end and crossing, compared to other corridors that are used by many
students to do some activities during breaks.

FIGURE 6 (a). (QGµDQGĴFURVVLQJµVSRWVRQWKHILUVWIORRUµVFRUULGRUOHIW; (b). Low light spots on the corridor (right)

The classroom window is located from a height of 100 centimeters from the floor to a height of about 280
centimeters. But several classrooms covered the window with some decoration; and the others are located at the
height of 149 centimeters, which are too high (see Figure 7(a) and 7(b)). Thus, teachers, school staff. And adult‘s
supervision is decreasing because they can only see a little from or into the classroom, while students cannot see
through the classroom because of their body heights (see Figure 8(a) and 8(b)).

FIGURE 7(a). Classroom window which covered with some decorations (left); (b). Classroom window which is too high (right)

FIGURE 8(a). Decorations on the window which make students cannot see through (left); (b). Window‘s height which makes
students cannot see through (right)

040031-6
 The interview revealed that only 18 % of the respondents rarely play in the field, yard, and corridor during the
breaks. The rest of the respondents usually play in those areas and interact with students from different grades. With
82% of the students play outside the classroom when interacting with each other, the possibility of bullying and
other conflicts appears. However, there are no respondents have experienced physical bullying. Moreover, most of
the respondent says that they do not feel afraid while they are alone in bullying hot spots area or fear their senior and
friend. However, there are 6% of the respondents who have experienced verbal bullying. The experience affects the
way the respondent behaves. They felt scared when being alone in the toilet, corridor, and canteen.
From the interview with the school's teacher, they explained that students from different education levels
(elementary and senior high school) rarely interact and play together because they have a different timetable, only
some of the students from the 4th-6th grade that usually spend the break time together. From the interview, we
concluded that other factors, such as students' activities and interaction, might affect the possibility of bullying.
Furthermore, bullying experience might alter how a student perceived the areas inside the school.

CONCLUSION
Based on the case study, there are several elements and characteristics of space identified that can increase the
potential for bullying, such as spatial configuration, layout, opening, and lighting. On the other hand, there are
also other factors, such as social factors and the school's rule. In the case study, different use of the area
between playgroup and kindergarten students, and different break time between elementary and high school
students can help to decrease the potential of bullying. However, the case study might reveal more conclusions if it
is done in a school with higher building complexity and a larger scale. For further research, it is interesting
if the author could investigate the public school, in which the government has standardized architectural layout
and elements. Hence, it might contribute more to the planning of public schools in Indonesia.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to thank Direktorat Riset dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Universitas Indonesia
(Directorate Research and Community Engagement Universitas Indonesia) for supporting and funding this
research under Hibah PIT 9 (No: NKB-0059/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2019). Also, thank you to Mr. Taufik and
Mrs. Sumi for giving permission to analyze the school environment and interviewed the students. We would
also like to thank everyone who helped the authors in the making process of this paper.
REFERENCES
1. C. Day and A. Midbjer, Environment and children: Passive lessons from the everyday environment
(Elsevier Ltd, USA, 2007).
2. T. Migliaccio, J. Raskauskas & M. Schmidtlein, Mapping the landscapes of bullying, Learning Environ 20, pp.365–382
(2017).
3. W. S. Hertinjung, Bentuk-Bentuk perilaku bullying di sekolah dasar (Prosiding Seminar Nasional Parenting 2013), pp.
450-458 (2013).
4. D. Lines, The bullies: Understanding bullies and bullying (2007).
5. L. Rapp-Paglicci, C. N. Dulmus, K. M. Sowers, and M. T. Theriot, ʊHotspots‫ ۅ‬for bullying: Exploring the role of
environment in school violence, In C. Dulmus, K. Sowe., & C. Dulmus, (Ed.), Kids and violence : The invisible
school experience, pp. 148-158 (2005).
6. R. V. Kail, Children and their development, (Pearson Education Limited, United Kingdom, 2016).
7. C. Pasalar, ʊThe effects of spatial layouts on students‘ interactions in middle schools: Multiple case DQDO\VLV‫ۅ‬
'RFWRUDOGLVVHUWDWLRQ1RUWK&DUROLQD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\ 2004.
8. P. K. Smith & S. Sharp, The problem of school bullying, In Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Ed). School bullying: Insights
and perspectives, pp. 160-192 (Routledge, London, 1994).
9. D. Pepler & W. Craig, Bullying prevention and intervention in the School environment: Factsheets and tools (2014).
10. D. Glover, G. Gough, M. Johnson & N. Cartwright, Bullying in 25 secondary schools: Incidence, impact and intervention,
Educational Research 42, (2000).
11. Supervise, In Dictionary.com, (n.d.).
12. Visibilitas, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (2016).
13. 6 /HH  0 +D 7KH GXDOLW\ RI YLVLELOLW\ 'RHV YLVLELOLW\ LQFUHDVH RU GHFUHDVH WKH IHDU RI FULPH LQ VFKRROVƍexterior
environments?, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 14, 145-152 (2015).
14. M. Dudek & D. Baumann, Schools and kindergartens: A design manual ( irkh ser, asel, 20 5).
15. A. R. Olds, Chil care design guide (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001).
16. . Hadi & C. Zimring, Design to improve visibility, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 9, pp.35-49
(2016).
17. S. Lee & 0+D7KHHIIHFWVRIYLVLELOLW\RQIHDURIFULPHLQVFKRROVƍLQWHULRUHQYLURQPHQWVJournal of Asian
Architecture and Building Engineering, 15, pp.527-534 (2016).

040031-7