1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people questions..docx

1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people
questions.
2. Talk about survey and just add a link to an online survey that
was used to collect data.
3. Talk about illustrator program I used to analyses data.
4. Where did you get the table show me source or data review
used.
5. See the pictured I added and add observation on methods add
something about it
Be brief
1.
Add interview
methods assume you
are asking 2
people questions.
2.
T
alk
about survey and just add a link to an online survey that was
used to collect
data
.
3.
Talk about illustrator program
I

used to
analyses
data
.
4.
Where did you get the table show me source
or
data
review used.
5.
S
ee
the pictured
I
added and add observation on methods add something about it
Be brief
1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people
questions.
2. Talk about survey and just add a link to an online survey that
was used to collect data.
3. Talk about illustrator program I used to analyses data.
4. Where did you get the table show me source or data review
used.
5. See the pictured I added and add observation on methods add

something about it
Be brief
Nourah Algowiri
• Test
oFace to face
oOnline
• 20 participants.
Stage 1:
The participant was asked to watch a walkthrough animations
for a class
room.
Stage 2:
The participant was given a minute to memorize as many as s/he
can from
a words list consists from 15 words.
Stage 3:
The participant was given a minute to write down as many as
s/he can

recall from the words list on a sheet of paper.
• The Procedure was repeated three times with three different
colors
classrooms.
• Green classroom
• Orange classroom
• Black and whit classroom
•
•

•
Challengings
PAPER TITLE [Arial 14, bold, centred, Upper Case]
Author Name1, Author Name2 [Arial, 12-point, bold, centred]
1Author Affiliation (COUNTRY) [11-point, italic, centred]
2Author Affiliation (COUNTRY) [11-point, italic, centred]
Abstract [Arial, 12-point, bold, centred]
This template will assist you in formatting your paper. Please,
insert the text keeping the format and styles. The parts of the
paper (title, abstract, keywords, sections, text, etc.) are already
defined on the style sheet, as illustrated by the portions given in
this document. [Arial, 10-point, justified alignment]
Keywords: Innovation, technology, research projects, etc. [Arial

10-point, justified alignment].
1 INTRODUCTION [Arial, 12-point, bold, upper case and left
alig.]
The final paper length should be between 3 to 10 pages
(including references). All pages size should be A4 (21 x
29,7cm). The top, bottom, right, and left margins should be 2,5
cm. All the text must be in one column and Arial font, including
figures and tables, with single-spaced 10-point interline
spacing. [Arial, 10 point, normal, justified alignment]
2 METHODOLOGY
A paper should contain the description of your study and should
be structured in different sections such as: Abstract,
Introduction, Methodology, Results, Conclusions,
Acknowledgements (if applicable) and References. Please note
that title and authors list should be coincident with the accepted
abstract.
3 RESULTS
The text included in the sections or subsections must begin one
line after the section or subsection title. Do not use hard tabs
and limit the use of hard returns to one return at the end of a
paragraph.
3.1 Subsection [Arial 12, bold, left alignment and capitalize the
first letter]
Please, do not number manually the sections and subsections;
the template will do it automatically.
3.1.1 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Abbreviations and
Acronyms
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used
in the text, even after they have been defined in the abstract. Do

not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are
unavoidable.
3.1.2 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Figures and Tables
Tables and figures should be centred and are numbered
independently, in the sequence in which you refer to them in the
text. Use the abbreviation “Fig. 1”, even at the beginning of a
sentence. Figure captions should be below figures and graphics
should be accompanied by a legend; table heads should appear
above tables.
Table 1. Caption for the table.
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
One
1
2
3
Two
4
5
6
Figure 1. Caption for the figure.
3.1.3 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Page numbers and
Footnotes
Please, do not add any kind of pagination anywhere in the
paper. Avoid using headers and footnotes.
3.1.4 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for References

The list of the references should be given at the end of the
paper. References are numbered in brackets by order of
appearance in the document (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). The same
reference can be cited more than once in the text with the same
reference number. The references should be cited according to
the Bibliography and Citation Style:
https://iated.org/citation_guide.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Use as many sections/subsections as you need.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [Arial, 12-point, bold, left
alignment]
Optional statement to thank other contributors, assistance, or
financial support.
REFERENCES [Arial, 12-point, bold, left alignment]
References [Arial, 10-point, left alignment, upper and lower
case] should be cited according to the Bibliography and Citation
Style https://iated.org/citation_guide
[1] A. Einstein, “General theory of relativity,” Annalen der
Physik, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 769–822, 1916.
[2] A.A. Author, "Journal/Conference Article Title," Periodical
Title, vol. Volume, no. Issue, pp.-pp., Publication Year.
[3] A.A. Author, Book Title. City/State: Publisher, Year of
Publication.
[4] A.A. Author, "Chapter Title" in Book Title (Editors eds.),
pp.-pp., City/State: Publisher, Year of Publication.
[5] A.A. Author, "Online Article Title," PeriodicalTitle, vol.
Volume, no. Issue, pp.-pp., Publication Year. Retrieved from
URL.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VISUAL AND ACOUSTIC PRIVACY
AND SECURITY IN OPEN INFORMAL COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
C. Amundson, G. Steinlage, V. Jani
Kansas State University (UNITED STATES)
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
ICERI Conference: Seville
The purpose of this research was to understand how to create
productive and enjoyable collaboration spaces in open work and
learning environments. These researchers focused on
understanding how visual and auditory distractions affect the
group while working collaboratively, and how these distractions
can be reduced for providing effective collaboration spaces.
These researchers utilized qualitative and quantitative methods
to conduct this research including observations of collaborative
groups, photo studies, personal interviews, as well as
conducting surveys. Data collected was analyzed by sorting and
clustering photos, behavior and journey mapping and survey
results. Data was synthesized using the Elito method to extract
insights and implications based on the observations, photos and
video recordings, interviews and surveys. A correlation was
found that suggests there are patterns in the amount of visual
and acoustical privacy the different personality types prefer. It
was also learned that while students may prefer to have more
acoustic and visual distractions, it may not be beneficial

towards their productivity or collaboration within the group.
The researchers hope that this will inform designers how to
create spaces that are more conducive to group collaboration.
Keywords: Informal Learning Environment, Visual Privacy,
Acoustical Privacy, Collaborative Learning Environment, Open
Work Environment
The Importance of Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Security in
Open
Informal Collaborative Learning Environments
IAPD 811, Design Research
Fall, 2015
Caleb Amundson
Kansas State University
Garrett Steinlage
Prof. Vibhavari Jani
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to understand how to create
productive and enjoyable collaboration spaces in open work and
learning environments. These researchers focused on
understanding how visual and auditory distractions affect the
group while working collaboratively, and how these distractions
can be reduced for providing effective collaboration spaces.

These researchers utilized qualitative and quantitative methods
to conduct this research including observations of collaborative
groups, photo studies, personal interviews, as well as
conducting surveys. Data collected was analyzed by sorting and
clustering photos, behavior and journey mapping and survey
results. Data was synthesized using the Elito method to extract
insights and implications based on the observations, photos and
video recordings, interviews and surveys. A correlation was
found that suggests there are patterns in the amount of visual
and acoustical privacy the different personality types prefer. It
was also learned that while students may prefer to have more
acoustic and visual distractions, it may not be beneficial
towards their productivity or collaboration within the group.
The researchers hope that this will inform designers how to
create spaces that are more conducive to group collaboration.
Introduction
Education is shifting to better engage and prepare the 21st
century student. In the international and hyper-connected world
of today, it is more important than ever to know how to
effectively collaborate. Whether that be cross-disciplinary,
cross-cultural, or just cross-personality, the students and
workers of the modern era are recognizing the strength and
vitality of teamwork more than ever before.
However, the vast majority of buildings that people learn and
work in today were not designed with collaboration in mind. So
while the way people today work is actively shifting, spaces are
lagging behind and rapidly growing out of date, actually
inhibiting positive and effective collaboration from happening.
These spaces may have taken an individual’s needs into
account, providing spaces with plenty of privacy to productively
and happily accomplish heads down work, but as they have
opened up to attempt to better accommodate a move toward

group-centric work, the necessary balance of acoustic and visual
privacy has been ineffectively tackled.
Everyone who has participated in a group project, whether in an
educational or non-educational setting, understands that group
members each bring a unique set of values, opinions, histories,
strengths, and weaknesses to the table. Understanding how to
utilize an individual to their fullest potential can make or break
the success of a group. So spaces must be designed that
accommodate people with different dispositions and their needs
for varying levels of acoustic and visual privacy. This will help
each member feel secure rather than vulnerable and allow them
to operate at their highest level.
This aim of this research was to discover if there is indeed a
correlation between someone’s disposition and their need or
desire for differing levels of acoustic and visual privacy in open
informal collaborative learning environments in order to better
enjoy the experience and therefore be more productive.
Research Methods
After careful consideration of various research methods
applicable for this project, and discussing it with their clients,
these researchers adapted mix methods approach and
incorporated both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
The two primary research methods utilized were: observational
and correlational research. Through observational research, the
researchers focused on ethological studies to understand how
students behave in current informal group collaboration
settings. Correlational research allowed these researchers to
collect data on two topics and draw conclusions on how they
can be related.
These researchers focused on college students at a Midwestern

university and observed selected students from each of the eight
colleges within the University. The predominant student
population age range was 18 to 26. This age range was selected
because the client, a major manufacturer of contract furniture,
wanted to understand their informal learning environmental
needs and gather insights about how they work in group
settings.
Literature Review
Education facilities are increasingly looking towards informal
collaboration spaces as a means to spark and increase the
engagement and productivity of students. According to Margulis
(2003), privacy is an “elastic concept” that can be loosely
defined as “limitations on or exemption from scrutiny,
surveillance, or unwanted access” (Margulis, 2003). As it
pertains to this study, limitation of unwanted access is key.
Similarly, Ding (2008) posits that there are three conditions of
privacy: accessibility, visual distractions and interruptions, and
speech privacy. As Ding discovered, eliminating visual and
auditory distractions and providing control of privacy increases
both worker satisfaction and productivity (Ding, 2008).
Margulis proposes that the ultimate goal of privacy is to
enhance autonomy and minimize vulnerability (Margulis, 2003).
When people feel secure and comfortable, they are able to be
the most productive. Ironically, to accommodate for a desire to
increase collaborative work, spatial privacy has been reduced
across the board. And while formal classroom and work
environments have undergone large amounts of research to
determine the proper privacy levels for optimum learning and
work, informal collaborative learning spaces have largely been
left out. Due to the limited amount of research done on informal
collaborative learning spaces, hypothesis’ have currently been
drawn based on research done in workplace or formal classroom
style environments. This workplace research may include some
parallels to collaborative learning, however collaborative

learning has not fully been examined and no firm conclusions
can be drawn until the appropriate studies are completed. Like
stated, it is hypothesized that an increase in visual and acoustic
privacy in informal educational group collaboration settings
will decrease distractions and increase productivity and quality
of the learning. The following literature reviews attempt to
demonstrate and support this hypothesis.
Dispositions of Users in a Group Environment
It is necessary to note that in any collaborative group, members
will have different personalities and general dispositions, each
of which lean toward varying degrees of privacy to feel
comfortable and therefore maximize individual productivity.
Very few studies have been conducted that examine the
relationship between personality and perceived need for
privacy. However, Pederson (1982) fielded a quantitative survey
of 70 university students to explore the correlation between
these two variables, in which he found that privacy choices did
indeed tend to be associated with personality characteristics. A
weakness of the study was the relatively small sample size and
the lack of diverse population. Alternatively, a strength was the
effort taken to reduce bias of the survey and addressing both
visual and physical privacy needs. Pederson found that,
“Subjects with low self-esteem were more likely to be reserved
and to seek solitude and anonymity” (Pederson, 1982). He
postulated that the reason behind this is that those with a low
self-view, low other-view, and those who were introspective
would likely desire a higher degree of visual and acoustic
privacy. People that were described as “happy-go-lucky” had a
strong aversion to isolation, solitude, and anonymity. In other
words, they liked to be surrounded by people that they knew.
These individuals could also benefit from a degree of visual and
acoustic privacy from those outside the collaborative group to
limit distractions and encourage focused work. Finally, those
who had a high tolerance of others gravitated toward being in
public while remaining anonymous when seeking privacy. This

indicates that they desire more open environments. In addition
to varying dispositions, gender has an effect on desired levels
of privacy. Ball, Daniel & Stride (2012) found that women
generally are more concerned about privacy issues than their
male counterparts. They posit that this is likely the result of
inappropriate violations on privacy in public like cat calling,
and more extremely, sexual assault (Ball, et al., 2012). These
results help us to understand that there must be choice and
control in the design of informal collaborative learning
environments to accommodate the varying desires for privacy
specific to each group dynamic.
Acoustic and Visual Privacy
New collaborative work methods require new and innovative
technologies to support both privacy and interaction. In a study
by Peterson & Beard (2004), qualitative and quantitative data
was collected from a cross-functional petroleum company team
to determine if new technology could increase the visual,
acoustic, concentration, and productivity satisfaction of team
members. Their research revealed that group members were
satisfied with their acoustic and visual privacy in a more open
collaboration area, but they were uncomfortable with having
their work stay in the shared space. Information needed to be
easily accessible to group members but not to the general public
(Peterson & Beard, 2004). While this study gives important
insight into what subjects are comfortable with in terms of the
privacy of themselves and their work in collaborative settings,
it fails to explain in detail what new technology or methods
were used to derive these results. A larger survey group and
increased details about methods tested would be beneficial.
Another study completed by Soules (2014), reveals that spatial
density, the number of enclosures, and the interpersonal
distance around the employee are the three spatial
characteristics that affect employee satisfaction the most.
Visual and acoustic privacy link all of these spatial
characteristics together. Therefore, it can be assumed that

employee satisfaction is directly related to the employee’s
perceived notion of how much visual and acoustic privacy is
needed and how much is being received (Soules, 2014). It is
important to understand how users currently feel about spaces to
determine if changes need to be made. In a quantitative study
done by Curtland (2012), poor acoustics was determined to be
the leading complaint in LEED certified offices. Because an
increasing number of new construction and renovations are
adopting LEED standards, this is a large concern for employers
and employees. Recent advances in materials and changes in
what LEED awards points for, have allowed designers much
more flexibility in designing more acoustically friendly spaces.
Even with more efficient materials, designers can still make
mistakes when incorporating pieces into a space. One of the
most popular misconceptions in that by using wall panels,
designers expect to stop sound from transmitting through rooms.
While the panels can help dampen the sounds, they do not fully
block them (Curtland, 2012). The lack of variety in workplaces
reviewed is a main weakness in this study.
Taken together, the results indicate that acoustic and visual
privacy play important roles in different user’s satisfaction and
production. Personality types can alter needs for privacy and
thus should be considered when designing collaborative
learning areas so as to meet the needs of all users. It can be
inferred from the six literature reviews that while much research
is present over the privacy needs of office workers, there is a
clear lack of information relating to the privacy, both visual and
acoustic, needed in collaborative learning environments. Further
research should be done to include how privacy affects users in
these education environments and what levels of privacy they
prefer. It is important to understand the current state of privacy
in collaborative learning environments and to observe the
positive or negative implications of visual and acoustical
privacy on users. This would allow designers to improve the
productivity of spaces and better assess the needs of

collaborative group learners.
Theory Reviews
Theory of Affordances
James Gibson’s Theory of Affordances has great implications
on the design world. Norman defines the theory as the
characteristics of an object and of a being determining a
possible interaction, or relationship, between the two (Norman,
2013). Simply put, this means that when people come into
contact with a new or unusual object, we can quickly determine
the function and use of that object. It is important to note that
an affordance is not singularly a quality of an object. For
example, a human might have an affordance with a small, flat
stone. The characteristics of the stone are its size, surface, and
ability to be thrown. The characteristics of the human in this
situation would be the ability to grip, strength, and the ability to
throw. If a cat replaced the human, the cat would not have an
affordance with the object because a cat does not have the
ability to grip or the ability to throw the stone. In design,
objects should have a blatant affordance. Norman discusses that
when an affordance is unobvious, a “signifier” is required to
show the potential action to the person (Norman, 2013).
An affordance can be broken down into three key components:
action, perception, and interpretation (Lier, 2004). A person
will engage with an object by identifying it and based on their
immediate understanding of the intended function of that object.
Thus these three components all occur simultaneously. Some
psychologists disagree with Gibson’s theory that perception is
direct and immediate, but ultimately this has very little
influence on the Theory of Affordances (Lier, 2004). Whether
we see things through a lens that has been formed by our nature
and nurture or whether we see things creatively and directly,
our ability to intuitively interact with unfamiliar objects

remains.
So, the implications of this theory for design are fairly simple.
Spaces and objects therein should be designed in an intuitive
manner. Especially as it pertains to visual and acoustic privacy,
barriers or screens need to function in obvious ways without
signifiers. And finally, users should be able to easily identify
options to adapt spaces in ways specific to their privacy needs,
and then perform those actions with the same amount of ease.
This will allow for maximum productivity by eliminating
unnecessary time spent seeking out a specific space or getting
set up before actually working.
Attentional Restoration Theory
Initially proposed in Rachel Kaplan’s book entitled, The
Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, the
attentional restoration theory has developed important
advancements in how nature can be used for cognitive
restoration. Along with her husband, Stephen, Rachel spent
many years researching the different ways in which nature
affects humans psychologically. One such theory was in
exploring how nature can both reduce stress and restore the
capacity to focus attention.
In his paper titled, The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward
an Integrated Framework, Stephen explains that there are
different types of human attention. The first, called directed
attention, is attention that must be consciously and manually
focused. Directed attention is used when there is a lack of
interest in a topic, but the information is important enough that
it requires a person to focus on it anyway. Humans are
incapable of maintaining directed attention for long durations of
time. When a person overuses their direct attention, they
experience directed attention fatigue. This fatigue causes
discomfort and is an evolutionary trait that limits the brain's

ability to direct attention. When this happens, the brain must
recover before it can focus efficiently again. The recovery
process happens when the brain uses involuntary attention, or
fascination. Fascination is a type of attention that occurs
naturally and does not require manual focus (Kaplan,1995).
Because of this, it uses no resources and cannot cause the brain
to fatigue. More so, while the brain is in this fascination
attention state, the brain can recover and recharge its direct
attention mode.
The Kaplan’s work shows that nature can play a large part in
this restorative process. Nature fits the Kaplan’s three
requirements of a restorative environment; it is often a different
type of environment than one’s current environment, it is full of
stimuli, and it is compatible with many different mindsets. In
The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrated
Framework, the Kaplan’s attempted various experiments in
order to validate their theory. One such experiment involved
three groups of randomly selected participants. The groups were
taken to three types of areas; a natural environment, an urban
environment, and a passive relaxation environment. After taxing
the participants with reading comprehension and exhausting
their directed attention, the researchers allowed them time to
recover. They then tested how effective the recovery time was
in each environment and found that those in the natural
environment recovered better than the two other groups
(Kaplan,1995). Much research has been done since the Kaplan’s
attentional restoration theory was introduced on exploring
further exploring how nature can affect the human psych. It has
been shown that while the Kaplan’s overall theory that nature
can boost and restore the human mind, people may not have to
actually be within nature to feel those benefits. Recent research
has shown that just looking at an image of nature in an office
was enough to boost productivity of employees.
Precedent Studies

Global Prairie
Global Prairie is a digital advertising and marketing agency that
specializes mainly in advertising, branding, design. They were
founded in 2008 and have since grown rapidly to include
locations all across the US as well as Germany. Global Prairie
places a large emphasis on giving back. For this reason, they
donate 10% of their annual profits to philanthropic
organizations. They also select work that they believe will not
only help the client, but will make a positive impact on the
quality of life in their communities.
The Global Prairie office in Kansas City, MO was completed in
2011 by Helix Architecture + Design. It was a remodeling of an
existing office space located in the downtown Crossroads
District. Helix set out with the intention of creating a warm,
inviting environment that can support multiple types of work,
collaboration, and community events. This lead to the concept
of ‘Net’ and ‘Nest’. The ‘net’ refers to network and the idea of
creating spaces where a variety of employees and clients can
meet and collaborate. ‘Nest’ harkens to the individual and
private workplaces where employees can go off to work in quiet
or to handle confidential material. This was combined with the
goal of being environmentally responsible when selecting
materials and furniture for the space. Vitra, a Swiss
manufacturer was chosen for all the office furniture because of
their commitment to environmental friendliness and material
durability. After spending some time in the office, users claim
to love the space, saying it has improved their efficiency and
enjoyment.
The office is organized into three main zones: focus,
collaboration, and social. The focus zone consists of benching
and private enclaves when heads-down work occurs. This is the
quietest part of the office and where confidential material is

handled. The collaborative zone includes touchdown spaces,
meeting areas, and conference rooms. The activities in these
spaces range from private to social. The final zone, social,
includes the café seating and large meeting spaces for
presentations. These areas are considered public space and
conversation flows freely. A wide variety of furniture was
provided for the office in order to enhance each spatial zone.
Benching seating makes up the majority of the focus zone while
high-back sofas and small tables and chairs help define
collaborative spaces. Large tables with many chairs make up the
café, outdoor, and conference seating. All furniture choices
were selected from Vitra for their homey, sophisticated
appearance as well as their environmentally friendly materials
and production processes. In order to address visual and
acoustic privacy in the office, large floor to ceiling panes of
colored glass were used as dividers. These dividers provide
visual separation without completely blocking sightlines
through the office. As well as improving visual privacy, they
also improve the acoustical privacy of the office by reflecting
sound back into areas it came from. This is especially important
between the collaboration and heads-down work spaces and
provides each zone the level of acoustic privacy needed.
Overall, a few key observations can be made on the successful
design of Global Prairie’s office. The first is that providing a
variety of zones for different types of activities is an important
part of creating a diverse and efficient office space. Where and
how the zones are placed can also affect the privacy of the users
as well as how often those spaces are used. The second
observation is the furniture choice of an office is just as
important as the architectural and zoning choices. Choosing
furniture that not only works aesthetically together, but can also
function on its own, allows for a much more dynamic and
efficient space. The final observation is in relation to visual and
acoustical privacy. The use of colored glass as a dividing
system is an excellent example of how visual and acoustical

privacy can be achieved without creating isolated spaces.
Spaces can still be connected and offer great views of the whole
office, without sacrificing the privacy of workers and
information.
GoDaddy Headquarters
GoDaddy’s Silicon Valley headquarters was designed by DES
Architects + Engineers and completed in 2014. Technology
companies are on the cutting edge of design and are fearless
when it comes to pushing the envelope, which reflects their
forward-looking values. The office appears to be based on the
concept of a racetrack, which serves as the primary circulation
and also begins to pick up on the designers’ intent to combine
work and play in the same space. Other obvious programmatic
elements that play off this concept could be the “grandstand”
seating, which are large informal stair-like elements that face
toward the track. Additionally, there is a “pit stop” area that
serves as a shortcut between the two open office areas and
access to conference rooms, group meeting spaces, and private
enclaves.
Figure 1. Primary “racetrack” circulation with secondary “pit
stop” circulation
Circulation. Amundson, C. 4 Nov 2015. Adapted from
"GoDaddy Silicon Valley Office / DES Architects + Engineers"
05 Sep 2014. ArchDaily. Accessed 4 Nov 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.archdaily.com/544590/godaddy-des-architects-
engineers/
The office is in a cluster of three identical buildings in
Sunnyvale, CA which house other technology powerhouses like
Microsoft and Rambus and are directly adjacent to a major
Google facility. Specifically, GoDaddy’s office is on an
elongated North-South axis. The floor to ceiling glazing around

the entire perimeter allow a lot of daylight into the space and
open offices were oriented along the perimeter to take
advantage of this light.
Looking at the plan, one would think that the pit stop was the
most important architectural move because of the scale,
placement, and articulation with materiality and overhead
planes visible in 3D. This helps reinforce the idea that the track,
or circulation, is the most defining element of the space.
Otherwise, geometry is primarily linear with rounded corners.
Again, this play is sympathetic to the racetrack concept. Core
spaces include more private and small group areas, while
perimeter spaces are dominated by open office workstations and
the places that people will spend the majority of their workday.
The structural system is steel column and beam with a concrete
floor slab. Vertical structure is primarily enclosed, but
horizontal structure and HVAC in the ceiling is primarily
exposed. Three dominant ceiling systems are used: wood slats
over visual and acoustic buffer zones like the grandstands and
pit stop, individual hexagonal acoustic panels over informal
spaces, and acoustic ceiling tiles over the workstations. In the
wood slats, suspended linear luminaires are used to emphasize
the linear geometry. Along exposed ceiling structure and in
areas with individual hexagonal acoustic panels, pendant
fixtures punctuate path. And suspended direct/indirect linear
pendant fixtures articulate workstation layout on the below the
acoustic ceiling tiles. Circulation is primarily articulated by an
exposed concrete floor, which is contrasted with carpeting
under the open office workstations and in the game room.
Stained concrete sets the café apart from circulation and the use
of artificial turf adds a fun element to small “fun” zones that
break up workstations and provide an acoustic and visual break.
Figure 2. Walls and smaller zones serve as visual buffers to
break up the otherwise open office environment

Visual. Amundson, C. 4 Nov 2015. Adapted from "GoDaddy
Silicon Valley Office / DES Architects + Engineers" 05 Sep
2014. ArchDaily. Accessed 4 Nov 2015. Retrieved from
engineers/
Atypical elements of the office include game room directly
adjacent to the reception area and grandstands. These spaces are
articulated primarily with overhead planes like the wood slat
system and changes in flooring, including the use of artificial
turf. The rhythmic variation of slat size in the wood ceiling
system is a tectonic expression. Additionally, there is a common
grouping of materials used among the different spaces. Fun
zones use materials that draw from nature: turf, wood slats, and
blue and green paints. Work stations have calming blue carpet
and white acoustic ceilings. And circulation uses hard or
completely exposed materials.
Overall, there are several takeaways from this project. First,
providing both work and play spaces that are separated by
visual and acoustic buffer zones of different scales can be a
successful way to create an inspiring work environment. There
is also a balance of formal and informal furniture that begins to
help users make choices of the type of environment that they
want to accomplish different types of tasks in. The concept is
abstract, but still obvious and the space is fun, exciting, and
stimulating just like a race.
Figure 3. Informal furniture was used to break up more formal
zones and provide more relaxed environments for employees to
collaborate, recharge, or quickly meet
Data Collection

This study utilized a variety of data collection methods
including observations, interviews, photo studies, and surveys.
These methods were chosen in order to provide both qualitative
and quantitative data that the researchers could then analyze and
cross-reference to develop insights. During data collection, the
researchers experienced issues with finding collaborative
groups to observe or interview. It was discovered that the time
of day plays an important role in when and where students met
for group projects. To overcome this challenge, the researchers
found acquaintances that were participating in group projects
and asked permission to observe them. It was through these
personal connections that all observations, interviews, and
photo studies were scheduled and executed. Another issue that
was discovered was that researchers were influencing the groups
they were observing. Some group members became distracted by
the researchers or otherwise acted differently than they may
have if not being observed. Researchers attempted to be as
inconspicuous as possible and not interact with the students will
they were working. However, this was not a perfect solution and
researchers may have still influenced the groups.
Group observations helped the researchers understand how
groups currently work in collaborative settings, as well as to
verify the interview data collected from students. A total of six
groups were observed by researchers over the course of three
weeks. These observations lasted one hour on average and
consisted of students from multiple different majors and
colleges within Kansas State University. Researcher sought to
observe a variety of demographics but the majority of people
observed were Caucasian students aged between 18-24. Group
sizes ranged from two to four students, though sometimes
changed during an observation. During observations,
photographs and timelapses were taken of student interactions,
objects, or movement. These photographs were to document
important activities or behaviors that the researchers noticed
within the group. Two timelapses were also taken of the groups

as they were working. Each timelapse lasted 15 minutes and
allowed researchers to view the movement of students during
that time.
Interviews were another method that was chosen to gain more
quantitative data. Five students were asked a series of questions
developed to determine whether the student was an introvert or
extrovert as well as their preferred group collaboration
environment. Students were then asked why they chose each
space and the characteristics they enjoyed or disliked about the
space. Two female and three males covering four different
fields of study were represented between the five students
interviewed. Interviews lasted between 20-30 minutes
depending on the responses of the students.
To obtain quantitative data, the researchers employed a survey.
A survey was created with Google Forms and distributed via
multiple social media outlets to reach a large audience. Because
the survey was accessible to the public on social media, the
survey included questions intended to filter out participants that
did not meet the criteria of currently enrolled in higher
education and having participated in a collaborative group
during the current semester. A total of 86 respondents
participated, with only 54 of those meeting the criteria the
researchers set forth. A mix of gender, majors, and personality
types were recorded from the 54 valid responses. Survey
questions can be found at the end of this paper in Appendix I.
Data Analysis and Synthesis
After collecting survey results via Google Forms, a variety of
tools were used to analyze the data. First, the researchers used
the summary of responses page built into Google Forms, which
creates graphs of quantitative data and presents all of the

qualitative data. One weakness of this method was having to
manually sort data to see how results varied between introverts
and extroverts. The four respondents that indicated that they
were unsure of their demeanor were not included in the
analysis. To separate the data, the Google Form results were
duplicated, and then the data was culled from those who
identified as introverts into one spreadsheet and extroverts into
another. Data was then individually analyzed and compared.
Another method used to analyze the data was the creation of
various pie and bar graphs. Pie graphs indicated responses to
binary questions, while bar graphs compared how introverts and
extroverts answered multiple choice questions. These graphs
helped the researchers see immediate trends, similarities, and
differences between how introverts and extroverts were affected
by their chosen collaborative environments. The most
challenging part of data analysis was organizing it in a way that
was logical and accessible. Because of the massive amount of
raw information and three primary means of collection (survey,
observation, and interview), it was difficult to make sure than
an exhaustive study was done to extract all possible trends.
When the surveys had been analyzed, the researchers adopted
two different frameworks to synthesize all of the collected data:
Elito, adapted from Martin & Hanington, and Journey Mapping,
adapted from Richardson. After cross-referencing interview,
survey, and observational data while using each method,
insights were drawn. Using the Elito method, the researchers
organized data into three categories: environments, objects, and
interactions. Trends and outliers were all noted as they appeared
across environments; between objects present in each setting;
and in how group members interacted with each other, objects,
and their environment. Elito presented some difficulties in its
intentionally broad base. It required a physically vast surface to
see all of the data collectively. While journey mapping, data
was organized into four categories: timeline, activities,
individual or group, and tools or objects. This synthesis tool

provided a better understanding of how groups work over time,
specifically as it related to consistencies in when and how
people were distracted. At first, Journey Mapping did not seem
to be beneficial, but after persistence and mulling over data
from each survey, observation, and interview, several of the
most significant findings emerged. The greatest challenge
encountered when synthesizing data was understanding what
insights were ultimately related to each other and further
combining and paring down those trends into three key findings.
To synthesize data, the researchers claimed a pin up space along
an interior core wall in an open studio environment. Survey
results were printed off and pinned horizontally, with responses
from introverts above those from extroverts. Interview and
observation notes were pinned above and below survey results.
Photographs of the observations were printed and taped to the
far right of the tack board, organized into three categories:
objects, interactions, and environment. The space between the
raw data and the photos was used for the chosen synthesis
framework. After the researchers determined that the Elito
framework had been exhaustively worked through, insights were
drawn and moved to the right of the photos. The process was
repeated for the Journey Mapping framework.
There were many commonalities between groups that the
researchers observed, ranging from common objects used in
collaboration to common behaviors and even generalizable
cycles of working and relaxing. Every group that was observed
used Google Drive, though the way it was used among groups
differed slightly. Most groups were working to prepare some
sort of paper or presentation, so Google Docs or Google Slides
was employed to allow all members to work on the same file at
the same time but from their own computers or tablets. This
observation implies that group members each want ownership of
the work, while still being semi-autonomous. The desire for
autonomy can be further extrapolated to suggest that individual

screen privacy is at least somewhat important to members
working in collaborative groups. While sharing one computer or
device would eliminate many distractions like checking email,
social media, or browsing the web, group members would rather
have more individual control than more focus.
Another interesting observation was the posture difference
between group members when they worked on individual tasks
during the group meeting and when everyone was discussing
together. Almost all members sat in more relaxed positions or
leaned back in their seat when working individually, but when a
group discussion was happening, members leaned forward and
were more actively engaged. The specific way that group
members engaged and disengaged each other varied slightly
based on the type of seating that members chose: whether more
formal tables and chairs or more relaxed lounge or free-moving
chairs on casters. But a change of posture was consistent,
indicating that non-verbal communication among group
members and a need to visually engage one another is important
to collaborative work. Some interviewees mentioned that even
though working over Google Docs from different locations is
feasible, it is not nearly as productive or desirable as working in
person because of the inability to easily communicate.
The environment had a noticeable impact on productivity, and
different environments had different dominant distractions.
Furthermore, survey data showed a slight correlation between
the personality type of the student and the distractions the types
of distractions they encountered (Tables 1-2). If groups chose to
meet in academic buildings, technology and social media played
less of a role in distraction, while non-group member peers
played a more significant distraction. If group members shared
a common academic major, they typically chose to work in a
building that the majority of their classes were held in because
of familiarity and convenience. Therefore, the number of
friends, acquaintances, and peers that were present in these

places was generally higher. In non-academic settings like
coffee shops, social media, email, music, and other
technological alerts were more distracting than in academic
environments. Group members seemed to check their phones
more often in these more casual settings. Non-group members
also provided some distraction in non-academic environments,
especially if friends chose to sit nearby the group that was
working. However, the general high traffic atmosphere of
people cycling through the order counter and seating area
seemed to be more distracting than known non-group members.
Table 1. A chart of data collected from the survey visualizing
the common visual
distractions experienced
Table 2. A chart of data collected from the survey visualizing
the common visual
distractions experienced
All of the interviewees mentioned that nearby conversations
that are distinguishable are one of the biggest distractions.
People typically do not intentionally eavesdrop, nearby
discussions can be hard to tune out after accidentally listening.
Another interesting trend emerged in relation to where groups
chose to sit. If group members arrived individually, they would
find a temporary location to wait for others before selecting an
ideal spot together. Temporary spots tended to be in more open,
central locations like in an entryway or at a table in the middle
of a room. More permanent locations that groups selected and

ended up working at were all bordered by at least one wall, if
not two or three. The bulk of group members sat facing out into
the larger space, showing a desire for visual connection with
their surroundings while feeling more secure by minimizing the
number of directions that they could be approached from. So
from these two insights, we can deduce that people desire to see
their surroundings for personal security, but they also want to
minimize distractions from others in greater environment.
Findings
The study results indicate that there is some correlation between
a student’s personality type and the level of acoustical and
visual privacy they prefer in a collaborative group setting.
However, it was also discovered that the type of environment
students preferred may have not been the best environment for
them to work in. The data collected suggests that environments
that have fewer visual and acoustical distractions are generally
better at keeping groups focused and on task. When students
were asked where and why they chose a place to meet with their
group, it was rarely because the environment was more
conducive to uninterrupted work.
Distractions were frequently mentioned in interviews and
surveys as negatives for group work. Despite the fact that
students felt distractions were not good, they still chose
environments where they could be distracted easily. The
researchers discovered during observations that those groups
which were not distracted when starting out, were less
distracted throughout the entire meeting time, even if more
possibilities for distractions occurred. This suggests that visual
and acoustic privacy at the beginning of a group meeting is the
most important. While the groups that started out on track
tended to work more efficiently, no group was immune to
distractions, especially as time moved on. The researchers

discovered through observations that after long periods of
focused work, students became distracted easier. Sounds and
movement that had previously gone unnoticed, now cause
student to turn and look. Checking cell phones also happened
more frequently later in each meeting.
Another insight the researchers found was in the location groups
were choosing to meet. Data from the survey and interviews
both suggested that convenience was the biggest factor in
choosing a location and time for a collaborative group meeting.
All of the students that were interviewed had chosen locations
near or on campus (Figure 5). They reasoned that it was a
central, neutral location and everyone know where it was.
Students within the same class tended to work in academic
buildings before or after class. Group size may have also played
a factor in the environment groups chose to work in. Only small
groups of 2-3 people were observed in a coffee shop setting.
Limited seating and louder ambient noise made conversation
difficult for anyone not seated next to each other. Larger groups
of 3 or more people were seen much more frequently in
academic buildings on campus. The researchers also found a
pattern in the positions groups chose inside environments.
Every group that was observed, chose a location against a wall
or multiple walls. Furthermore, if the room had seating that was
unoccupied by a window, the group would choose that location
over other open spaces. Members tended to orient themselves
with their backs towards the walls and facing out towards others
in the room. This was an interesting observation as the students
were intentionally positioning themselves in a position to
experience a higher number of visual distractions. When
comparing members within groups that were seated facing the
wall to those facing others in the room, those that faced the wall
tend to experience less distractions and stayed on task for
longer periods of time.

Figure 4. Primary workplaces chosen by student for
collaborative group projects
Through observations the researchers noticed that a student’s
familiarity with other group members also affected the amount
of distractions the group encountered. Groups that were
unfamiliar or moderately familiar with each other, tended to
focus more on working. There were not many side conversations
and the group was quieter in general. Groups composed of
familiar students or friends tended to behave much differently.
Familiar groups had numerous and frequent side conversations
between members. Sometimes there were more side
conversations than work being accomplished in the group.
Familiar group members also appeared more relaxed and
comfortable within their group. These familiar groups chose or
stated that they preferred lounge type furniture. Students were
slouching in their seat or resting their feet up on ottomans,
while working on a laptop in their laps. Though working with
friends let to groups that tended to be distracted easier and
worked slower, interviewed students state that they preferred
working with friends and felt they accomplished better work
when doing so.
The final insight that the researchers gathered was in relation to
the ambient noise levels that groups prefer. Each location in
which groups were observed had different volumes of ambient
noise. The observations in a coffee shops were the loudest,
while the ones in academic buildings were much quieter. The
researchers found a correlation between the loudness of an
environment and the amount of distractions that individuals and
groups encountered. Students that were working within their
group on individual tasks were less distracted and more focused
when working in quieter environments. Students would converse
with other group members before putting headphones on to

work individually in coffee shops. This activity was not
repeated in any other locations that were observed. When
students worked collaboratively within their group, the sound
level did not seem to have a great impact on them or did not
directly cause distractions. When the ambient room noise was
low, group members lowered their voices when talking so as to
not be overheard. This seems to suggest groups prefer some
level of ambient noise in order to provide acoustic privacy for
their conversations. Because most of the groups observed
worked both collaboratively and individually within their
groups and each method of working prefers different acoustic
levels, no space was acoustically ideal.
Conclusions
The study suggests that there is a correlation between
personality types and the level of acoustic and visual privacy
that students prefer. It was also found that while students may
prefer a certain level of privacy, it may not be the best choice
for productivity. This initially seems counterintuitive but after
further research became clear: students need distractions in
order to provide breaks from focus work. As we learned from
Stephen Kaplan’s Attentional Restoration Theory (1995),
students can only focus for so long before becoming fatigued.
Once fatigued, they will become distracted easily and require
breaks in order to refocus. Visual or acoustic distractions
happening around them can provide occasional restorative
breaks for the students. However, there is a fine line between
the right amount of distractions and too many distractions.
Should students become overstimulated by acoustical or visual
distractions, their ability to focus for a period of time can
become diminished and their productivity will fall.
Convenience was found to be the driving factor in where groups
chose to work. Data shows that a majority of students choose

locations that are on campus or near campus. The study also
shows that students typically do not go out of their way to meet
in an environment even if they feel is better for collaboration.
Groups are willing to sacrifice some amenities and the absence
of distractions for a central and easily accessible space.
Finally, the study also revealed that group collaboration does
not happen as frequently as many may think. The results showed
that there were elements of collaboration as well as times of
individual focus work, when meeting in groups. The most
popular method for groups to work in this way was with Google
Docs or Google Drive. These findings suggest that collaborative
environments need to take into account not only facilitating
group needs, but individual ones as well.
Limitations
While obtaining valuable insights, this study was also hindered
by several limitations including sample size and the researcher's
influence of behavior. Because the researchers were only able to
observe and interview students at Kansas State University, it is
unknown whether students in other schools or locales behave
similarly. By observing groups from different locations, a more
diverse and therefore accurate set of data could be derived from
students. Increasing the amount of observational, interviews,
and survey data that was collected would also be extremely
beneficial to determine if the data these researchers collected
was accurate or not. A larger pool of survey data would help
researchers determine if there is in fact a correlation between
the type of distractions students experience and the student’s
personality type.
Another limitation the researchers experienced was with
influencing student’s behaviors and comfort while observing
groups. Because permission was obtained from all students

being observed before the observation took place, students were
aware of the researcher’s presence and may have acted
differently than they otherwise would have had they not known
the researchers were watching. Because the researchers were
familiar with at least one student in each group, students would
feel comfortable talking to the researchers while the observation
was taking place. This conversation lead to distractions for the
students, their group members, and the researchers. A better
approach to observations may have been observing from a
greater distance, using video cameras to observe groups, or
observing groups with members that are unfamiliar to the
researchers.
Appendix I – Survey
Education
1. Are you currently enrolled in an institution of higher
education?
(university, community college, or private college)
Yes
No
1a. What is your field of study?
i.e. your major or degree
Page break. If answer to question 1 is no, do not continue.
Collaborative Experience
2. Have you participated in a group project outside of the
classroom during the semester?
Yes
No

Page break. If answer to question 2 is no, do not proceed.
General Information
3. Which do you identify as?
Male
Female
Transgender
Other
4. I would consider myself an…
Introvert
Extrovert
Unsure
5. How many collaborative groups have you participated in this
semester?
1-2
3-4
5+
6. Where do you primarily choose to work in your collaborative
groups?
Library
Coffeeshop
Residence
Academic Building
Other: _______________
7. Why do you choose to meet in this location?
8. Describe the atmosphere of this location.
9. What are benefits to meeting in this location over other
locations?

10. What are disadvantages to meeting in this location over
other locations?
11. Does your chosen location vary based on the type of project
you are working on?
Yes
No
Page break. If answer to question 11 is yes, proceed to question
11a. If no, proceed to question 12.
Location Choice
11a. Why do you choose different spaces for different types of
projects?
Page break. Proceed to question 12.
Group Work
12. Do you typically enjoy working in collaborative groups?
Yes
No
Other: _______________
13. Do you feel the place in which you work affects your
enjoyment?
Yes
No
Other: _______________
14. Do you feel the place in which you work affects your
productivity?
Yes
No
Other: _______________
15. What are some common visual distractions you personally

experience while working in this location?
Choose all that apply.
Strangers walking by
Friends walking by
Technology (i.e. cell phone, computer, tv, etc.)
Other: _______________
16. What are some common noise distractions you personally
experience while working in this location?
Choose all that apply.
Nearby conversations
Socialization with non-group members
Off-topic conversations within the group
Non-verbal noises (i.e. air conditioning, chair squeaking, lights
humming, etc.)
Technology (i.e. cell phone, computer, tv, etc.)
Silence
Other: _______________
Appendix II – Resources
Ball, K., Daniel, E. M., & Stride, C. (2012). Dimensions of
employee privacy: An empirical study. Information Technology
& People, 25(4), 376. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.er.lib.k-
state.edu/10.1108/09593841211278785
Chusid, M. (2001). Public musings on acoustical privacy.
Architectural Record, 189(9), 163-172. Retrieved
fromhttp://search.proquest.com.er.lib.k-
state.edu/docview/222139293?accountid=11789
Cohen, A. J., Campanella, A., Marshall, L., & Grant, C. (1987).
Perspectives on acoustics in environmental design. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, 4(2), 162-179. Retrieved

Curtland, C. (2012). Acoustics: The biggest complaint in LEED-
certified office buildings. Buildings, 106(9), 34-35. Retrieved
Ding, S. (2008). Users' privacy preferences in open plan offices.
Facilities, 26(9), 401-417. Retrieved
fromhttp://dx.doi.org.er.lib.k-
state.edu/10.1108/02632770810885751
Foulkes, T., & Elliott, W. (2011). Case study: Improving speech
privacy in a cathedral ceiling open office. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 129, 2671. Print.
“Global Prairie Kansas City, United States.” Vitra. Web. 4 Nov.
2015.
“Global Prairie | Digital Marketing and Advertising.” Global
Prairie. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.
"GoDaddy Silicon Valley Office / DES Architects + Engineers"
05 Sep 2014. ArchDaily. Accessed 4 Nov 2015. Retrieved from
engineers/
Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward
an Integrative Framework. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.wienerzeitung.at/_em_daten/_wzo/2015/08/07/1
50807_1710_kaplan_s._19951.pdf
Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language
Learning a Sociocultural Perspective (pp. 91-105). Dordrecht:
Springer Science Business Media.

Mahmoud, R. (2011). The Interior Design of Workplace and its
Impact on Employee’s Performance: A Case Study of the
Private Sector Corporations in Egypt. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 746-756.Retrieved
fromhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042
812004570
Margulis, S. T. (2003). Privacy as a social issue and behavioral
concept. The Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 243-261. Retrieved
Martin, B. and Hanington, B., (2012). Universal Methods of
Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop
Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective
Solution
s. Rockport Publishers; 1.2.2012 edition.
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and
expanded ed.). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=nVQPAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT1
8#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Oldham, G. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace
partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 253-258.

Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.er.lib.k-state.edu/10.1037/0021-
9010.73.2.253
Pedersen, D. (1982). Personality Correlates of Privacy. The
Journal of Psychology, 112(1), 11-14. Retrieved from
http://http://web.a.ebscohost.com.er.lib.k-
state.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e812c0d8-20c7-47ed-
ab27-808d0a344d8b%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4106
Peterson, T. O., & Beard, J. W. (2004). Workspace technology's
impact on individual privacy and team interaction. Team
Performance Management, 10(7), 163-172. Retrieved
Richardson, A. (2010, November 15). Using Customer Journey
Maps to Improve Customer Experience. Retrieved December 16,
2015, from https://hbr.org/2010/11/using-customer-journey-
maps-to
Soules, M. J. (2014). Employees' satisfaction as influenced by
acoustic and visual privacy in the open office environment
(Order No. 1585285). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (1667441134). Retrieved

“Workplace - Helix.” Helix KC. Web. 4 Nov. 2015

1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people questions..docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people questions..docx

Similar to 1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people questions..docx (20)

More from SONU61709

More from SONU61709 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1. Add interview methods assume you are asking 2 people questions..docx