Author(s): |
Berry, Steve |
Source: |
School Business Affairs, v78 n10 p8-10 Nov 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-11-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Costs; Performance Factors; Cost Effectiveness; Physical Education Facilities; Playgrounds; Design Preferences; Athletics; Construction Materials; Prefabrication; Educational Facilities Planning
Abstract:
A school business manager who has been in the market for a new athletic field in the last 10 years has no doubt has been exposed to the front lines of an intense battle for market share between producers of natural grass and manufacturers of artificial turf. Each camp is well represented by powerful industry organizations across the country. As a result, the marketplace is flooded with information (and misinformation) about natural grass and artificial turf. The decision to go natural or artificial is further complicated by the diversity of public opinion on the subject. Sports purists swear by the authenticity of natural grass, and owners and operators praise the benefits and flexibility of artificial turf. More recently, community groups such as youth sports organizations, frustrated by limited access to school and community fields, are calling for more artificial turf fields. So which playing surface really provides the best value? The answer often depends on a combination of many different factors. These include: (1) Construction and start-up costs; (2) Maintenance and operations costs; (3) Replacement costs; (4) Hours of use; (5) Water issues; (6) Safety issues; and (7) Weather and environmental factors. To make the best value selection for one's organization, consider a thorough review of the benefits and concerns for each product type with respect to the district's unique situation.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Sands, Ian |
Source: |
SchoolArts: The Art Education Magazine for Teachers, v111 n9 p34-35 May-Jun 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Studio Art; Art Activities; High School Students; Art Materials; Computer Uses in Education; Construction Materials
Abstract:
To the general public, the topic of art education conjures up images of pencil drawings and tempera paint. If asked what a student might learn in an art class, a typical response might be that they will be taught how to draw and paint. This interpretation isn't totally incorrect, as drawing and painting are activities preformed in most artrooms. This analysis, however, that art is about drawing and painting, is simply flawed. Art education should go beyond teaching the ability to see an object and reproduce it. Art education should teach students how to see an object and conceptualize ways to repurpose it. In this article, the author describes two projects that use materials to go beyond the pencil. The first project incorporates mud as a medium in the exploration of the element of art known as value. Mud was repurposed from its original intention as potting soil into four different values from light to dark. The second project challenges students with the task of transferring an image from a computer screen to a brick wall. (Contains 1 online resource.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Simoneau, Mike |
Source: |
American School & University, v84 n7 Mar 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Facilities Design; Sustainable Development; Building Design; School Buildings; Educational Facilities Planning; Construction Materials; Structural Elements (Construction); Design Requirements; Interior Design; School Maintenance
Abstract:
Many school and college campuses are like small cities--they offer a little bit of everything. Although academic buildings and residence halls account for a sizable percentage of the facilities on a campus, the academic community on a school campus can include other buildings with specialized design and performance needs: laboratories, weightrooms, computer labs, and cafeterias. As education institutions plan these facilities, they should evaluate carefully the design, performance, and sustainability features of the building materials and finishes being used. In an education facility, flooring often serves as the basis of a design plan and a maintenance regimen. Specialty spaces deserve special attention when it comes to flooring decisions in education institutions. The author suggests that rubber flooring can be a practical choice for schools because of its durability, resistance to heavy foot traffic, comfort underfoot, and green benefits.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Belew, Rachel |
Source: |
Educational Facility Planner, v46 n1 p46-48 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Facilities Planning; School Maintenance; Pollution; Child Health; Educational Environment; Physical Environment; Construction Materials; Educational Equipment
Abstract:
One might assume that, within the walls of a school, it is the shared responsibility of the school nurse, guidance counselor, physical fitness instructor, and food services staff to protect student health. In truth, such an important responsibility also belongs, in very large part, to the educational facility planner and school maintenance staff. Both help control which products and materials will be used to construct and furnish the school building. If carefully selected, these products and materials can have an extremely positive impact on a school's indoor air quality. And good indoor air quality can, in turn, have positive impacts on student and teacher health--including increased concentration and productivity, improved test scores, and decreased absenteeism due to fewer asthma and related illnesses. By making more informed decisions about the products used to construct and furnish a school building, educational facility planners can help ensure optimal indoor air quality--and, in turn, a healthier learning environment.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Shane, Jackie |
Source: |
Journal of Academic Librarianship, v38 n2 p115-122 Mar 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Library Facilities; Energy Conservation; Lighting; Ventilation; Building Design; Construction Materials; Best Practices; Facility Improvement; Construction (Process)
Abstract:
This article stresses the importance of building design above technology as a relatively inexpensive way to reduce energy costs for a library. Emphasis is placed on passive solar design for heat and daylighting, but also examines passive ventilation and cooling, green roofs, and building materials. Passive design is weighed against technologies that actively capture renewable energy. Best practice examples include new construction and retrofits. Active technologies for capturing renewable energies, such as photovoltaic panels, can be employed when passive solutions are not realistic due to limitations resulting from site selection. Building or remodeling an environmentally sustainable building is more costly than a conventional equivalent, but long-term savings in energy and maintenance can more than compensate for the initial investment. Passive solar heat is particularly compatible with library functionality because it invites natural light into living spaces and eliminates noise that would otherwise exist with forced-air HVAC systems. Practical suggestions for subtle improvements to existing buildings are offered in addition to more ambitious construction projects.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Finsen, Peter I. |
Source: |
Educational Facility Planner, v45 n4 p59-63 2011 |
|
Pub Date: |
2011-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Facilities Design; Construction (Process); Energy Conservation; Cost Effectiveness; Pollution; Structural Elements (Construction); Educational Environment; Sustainability; Facility Expansion; Building Design; Construction Materials
Abstract:
School design utilizing integrated architectural and structural precast and prestressed concrete components has gained greater acceptance recently for numerous reasons, including increasingly sophisticated owners and improved learning environments based on material benefits such as: sustainability, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, storm resistance, cost effectiveness (initial and life-cycle), durability and low maintenance. Safe, high performance, sustainable school design provides physical facilities that improve learning environments while offering shelter from the storm, saving energy and resources, and delivering improved life cycle cost value. (Contains 9 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2011-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Architecture; Higher Education; Energy; Buildings; Conservation (Environment); Context Effect; Construction Materials
Abstract:
Before becoming dean of the A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan, the author was a professor of architecture at Harvard University where she taught design studio, lecture, and seminar courses on topics including digital technology and the history of design and an introductory course on the environmental impact of material selection and application. She is also the principal of an architecture firm and, as such, have dealt with the struggle to do the right thing on real projects, in real time, with real budgets and real constraints. As someone who has a foot firmly planted in academia and a foot firmly planted in practice, in this article the author wants to address the design of objects and buildings and where she sees the challenges and opportunities in the future. (Contains 2 figures and 1 note.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|