Science labs – loose or fitted furniture – or both?

 

Mike Serridge is a member of the British Standards Committee LB/O01/01 Laboratory Furniture and Fittings and Director at S+B UK, one of the UK’s longest established and leading specialists in the design, manufacture and installation of laboratory furniture, fume cupboards and associated services.

Ongoing investment in development of high specification, functional, innovative design with student appeal at its core has resulted in  S+B being awarded The Queen’s Award for Enterprise. This award is the UK’s highest accolade for business success with winners selected by the Prime Minister’s office and approved by Her Majesty the Queen. 

 

Most specialist school science furniture suppliers will be able to offer a variety of different room designs and furniture systems and will include loose and fitted furniture options within their range.

The question for the school is which best suits their needs? This is not a straightforward choice because it is always the case that there are be pros and cons associated with each option, which means the decision will need careful consideration.

Circumstances such as budget and what a building fabric will and will not facilitate will have a considerable bearing on the eventual choice, but teacher preference in terms of how they like to organise and deliver lessons will also be a strong influencer.

It should, however, be noted that independent advisory bodies such as The ASE and CLEAPSS recommend against “hot labbing” i.e. designing around the preference of an individual teacher.

Flexibility is a much-used word in design and many architects and interior designers equate that to the ability to reconfigure spaces and will therefore tend towards moveable furniture systems.

Many educationalists support that view and will pursue such a design, although it seems that there is at least an equal number who do not accept that the ability to move tables around in a lab provides flexibility. Many teachers and advisors hold the view that the opposite is the result.

It is true that where services are restricted to fixed perimeter benching and the central area in a lab is populated with unserviced tables, there are often reconfiguration opportunities and some teachers will avail themselves of that facility. It is also true that this would usually be the lowest cost option for a school.

Image: Wardlaw Hartridge School USA

Many teachers never move tables because room size and shape are such that reconfiguration options are minimal, they find the process noisy/disruptive, and that the movement causes damage to the floor.

Those that prefer fully-serviced fixed island assemblies do so because they believe they are more functionally effective for collaborative practical work, whereas services confined to the perimeter are restrictive of interactive group work. Those that have this preference also argue that confining practical work to the perimeter creates safety risks because space is limited, and all students have their backs to the teacher when engaged in this activity.

Science furniture specialists are always looking for ways to provide client preferences but at the same time address the concerns and limitations associated with different options.

Service Towers and moveable tables have been very popular amongst science teachers for many years. This design addresses the requirement for services in the central areas for collaborative group work, but at the same time provides some reconfiguration options. The noise and floor damage issues can be addressed by providing lockable castors. However, this makes tables easier to move accidentally, which compounds the safety risks associated with naked flames, boiling liquids and chemicals being used on the worktops. Some sort of locking mechanism over and above lockable castors, which prevents accidental movement during practical lessons, is therefore desirable.

Image: Xenium Service Towers and Tables at St George’s British School Rome
Architect - Benedetta Gargiulo Morelli from NOS Design
Photographer - Paolo Mercogliano

Overhead service delivery systems are seen by some as a means of using moveable tables and providing services to those tables as and when needed. Some teachers complain that the service delivery droppers are intrusive and cause sightline issues and there is still the concern about accidental movement of tables during practical lessons.

Image: Elevaire – Overhead Service Delivery System

Serviced moveable workstations are available and are connected to service supply lines when needed on a room perimeter, in much the same way as a Mobile Fume Cupboard is used and this does provide some reconfiguration options.

Image: Mobilaire System

The traditional school lab featured fixed forward-facing bench rows and whilst this is still the preference for many teachers, there is acknowledgement that these designs are more teacher-centred than pupil-centred. Group work is restricted as is teacher access to all students because of the resulting narrow gangways and back row syndrome is often an issue.

Image: Wing System

The emergence of new more spaces-efficient, fully-serviced island workstations whilst not the perfect solution to every individual set of circumstances or preference, does address many of the issues. The designs are ideally suited to safe pupil-centred learning, whilst not being restrictive of more formal whole class address (the students all group around one side quickly, easily and safely to face one way when the teacher is making a demonstration or delivering a lecture). Generous worktop space per student and circulation space provides the teacher and students with safe and easy access to all parts of the room and eliminates back row syndrome. It should be noted that once installed, whilst rearrangement is possible, this is not a quick and easy undertaking.

Image: Spacestation and Saturn Systems  - British International School Tbilisi

Image: Saturn and Mercury Systems

Advisory bodies consider function, health and safety, the need to facilitate differing pedagogy and future proofing (avoiding “hot labbing”). They recognise that there is not a one size fits all solution and, for this reason, will include options in their design guidelines. The prevailing view is that practical science should be facilitated in the safest and most space-efficient manner possible.

There is recognition that some subjects, science being one, have very particular requirements which need very particular facilities and therefore necessitate dedicated specialist spaces. Trying to turn a school science lab into a general-purpose classroom does not create flexibility and, in effect, has the opposite outcome.

What is considered by many to be the ideal, would be a space big enough to accommodate all students engaged in practical science, working on dedicated, fully-serviced centrally located benches, and a separate area populated with unserviced desks for non-practical work. Given that classroom size is rarely big enough to accommodate the ideal, the preference (where circumstances will allow) is for less formal arrangements of fitted and fully-serviced island workstations suitable for practical science, big enough for theory work and arranged to allow students to work in groups and facing in one direction when required. This is thought to be more flexible in reality than unserviced tables with services confined to the perimeter.

In conclusion, our view is that there is a case for fixed serviced furniture, for loose unserviced tables, for partly serviced mobile workstations and for combinations of all, depending on the given circumstances. Providing the pros and cons are recognised and considered, a reputable specialist supplier (always check credentials, references, track record) should be able to give best advice in the given circumstances.

A supplier properly applying Duty of Care, should be prepared to advise against a school's preference if an alternative would be a better option with all things fully and properly considered. Budget and conditions such as not being able to deliver services to island benches through a pre-stressed concrete floor will often mean that compromise to personal preference and/or to the ideal is the necessary and best outcome.

Much of the above has centred on science teaching and of course health and safety issues, but what is not addressed is something which we strongly believe should be considered in every instance where an important capital investment decision is being made which must provide service for 25 years and that is student preference. Satisfaction levels amongst the most important stakeholder in this process i.e. the student, is always at the highest when a school has involved students in the selection process. This engagement gives students ownership of their own learning space a can have a very positive impact on motivating students and attracting more to STEM.

If you would like more information on STEM and other furniture systems provided by S+B please visit www.splusb.co.uk or contact Mike at mike_serridge@splusb.co.uk .  Alternatively, check out their Twitter, Facebook  and Youtube pages.