Addressing the 'Itch'

The classroom is a place where children are required to sit and learn, usually on hard seats, for prolonged periods of time. The school seat provides a place where they will read, write, draw, listen to their teacher and engage in activities with their peers. Seats are required in this scenario for the following groups of people:

• For the teacher: Maintaining some sort of control over many pupils.
• For the student: To provide a dedicated and safe space for a child to occupy - where they can focus on the tasks at hand.
• For the group: Positioning of children around the classroom, so that they can engage in group activities as well as individual tasks.

For a great number of children, the process of learning is made even more difficult by a combination of underdeveloped vestibular systems – i.e. weak core strength and balance – and an innate need to move. [Strauss, 2014] For those with SPD (sensory processing disorder), Dyspraxia, ADHD and autism this desire is even more prevalent. Sitting still in one place can be difficult and will inevitably lead to fidgeting, or what many professionals call “the itch”. In order to learn children need to be able to think, but to be able to think they need to be able to move.

I drew inspiration from a bouncer seat designed for babies and I am adopting a modernist perspective. Several design principles guided my design’s development and my vision:

1. Form follows function: My seat should primarily be functional and should provide increased vestibular and proprioceptive input to the user. I was inspired by the therapeutic features offered by Peter Opsvik’s Balans chair. (The Open University, 2013). The materials will be strong and sturdy, guaranteeing sustainable long life.
2. Less is more: It should be viewed as ‘just another seat’ in the classroom, not overly flamboyant but as minimalist as possible with simple geometric form.
3. It should be constructed with materials like those of other school chairs: plastic and steel, comprising no more than 10 components for ease of assembly.
4. Technology and machine-inspired design: It will draw influences from the technologically sleek aluminium frame of the S33 chair.

My main concern was the difficulty that would be encountered positioning it beside a classroom desk. It would stand out as extremely different to the other seats in the classroom. Similarly, it appeared that it would not lend itself to sustainable manufacture. The materials for such a seat would more than likely not last long, and would be subject to tear, break and become disfigured. I did make a mental note that such a design might prove useful in a different classroom setting, such as a classroom designed for children with special needs or as a schoolyard addition like the “buddy bench” that has become popular over the last few years.

My initial plan was to attempt to replicate the design of a baby bouncer seat, believing that it would provide the most stimulus for my intended context of use. After sketching and experimenting with positioning the coil at different sections of the seat, I realised early on that the “bouncer-style” design would be difficult to implement.

I spent some time examining the piston mechanism on my own office chair and subsequently explored the technological possibility of including 4 pistons within an H-shaped frame. The frame would be affixed on the underside of the seat, and the pistons would raise and fall independently depending on the amount of pressure placed upon them by the child sitting on them. This, I believed would provide a variable sensory stimulus for the user of the seat. This idea was worthy of further development but following a lengthy consultation period with some occupational therapists who work with my intended target user, I shelved the idea.

The rocker design was my fifth and final model, and the one I chose to develop further. By this stage I had experimented with various functional designs, from coils to pistons to hinges, and several geometric forms for components. But it was the rocker design that proved the most promising on how I could design a dynamic seat that would “address the itch” but still be just part of a classroom.

The orthographic drawings exposed some aspects of the design that I had overlooked in my initial perspective sketches – e.g. necessity for precise location of the support leg and swing bar in the seat and leg sections.

As the design developed, I recognised the need for precise measurements so that the 6 components will fit together comfortably and provide the sensory stimulus I identified as the function of the seat early in the process.

This is a modernist seat, made up of 6 separate components which fit together to provide a functional and sustainable piece of classroom furniture. It is meant to provide a means for children who “need to move to think” to sit and take part in lessons, while having the option to move about and receive additional sensory stimulus. It is intended to help with concentration and awareness for neurodiverse children, those who may not be sure where their bodies are in space.

The seat height is positioned at just over 250mm and the intended user is between the ages of 5 to 7. It has a playful association to it and is made up of several geometric shapes. It should be easily manufactured and assembled.

It will also be similar in colour to other seats that are used in schools – the seat and triangular legs being made of polyurethane plastic, while the swing bar, lock nut and support leg being made of aluminium. Another feature is that the lock nut can be adjusted on the swing bar to provide variance in the amount of rocking motion allowed.

I am confident that the seat adheres to the design principle “form follows function”; the visual appearance of the design has remained secondary throughout the process to the primary vision of creating a functional dynamic seat. (The Open University, 2013) Similarly, it has drawn influences from technological and machine-inspired design. It is inspired by the aluminium support visible in the S33 chair, coupled with the process of injection moulding demonstrated in the Myto chair by Konstantin Grcic.

My interest in functional solutions for people with disabilities fuelled my first ideas for the design. I clarified the problem as the inability for some neurodiverse children to be able to concentrate in the classroom. When considering a basic concept, I initially sketched a great deal of types of seats, in various forms, ranging from cushion-type structures to hardback static constructs. However, looking back at the process it was clear that I couldn’t just “design it” and be done.

My first idea (the “coil bouncer”) began with a design like that of a baby seat. But due to the scenario intended for use, I found that the form would not fit with the surroundings. Therefore, I experimented with several different sketch ideas. I considered the positioning of a coil at different locations – the bottom, the area where the knee would be and finally at the section where the seat became the back. I was attempting to maintain a shape like the Myto and S33 chair designs. The generating and evaluation of these designs eventually reminded me that I needed to focus on the function before the form.

The piston chair also showed promise early on and may be something I’ll revisit again at some stage. The first few iterations of this design involved at polyurethane “bump seat” affixed to a larger steel plate, which itself attaches to four separate pistons for variable movement within a 360° plane. However, in order to obtain a wide field of movement, the seat, plate and support would need to be quite large, much more than would be suitable for a school chair. Similarly, the seat and back would also need to be two separate components for this design to function properly which didn’t sit right with the machine-inspired forms that had encouraged my initial vision. A design including a H-shaped base plate was also considered, where each set of two pistons would be affixed to a single support leg. This second iteration did focus more on the functional aspects required and had aspects of technological innovation. However, I think that it was perhaps a little bit too “techie” and would not lend itself to ease of manufacture, leading to higher costs – more of a niche product, which is not my intention.