Building Resilience In Early Childhood Education: Preschool Built Environment Quality In Malaysia
Abstract
Positively valued developmental and learning outcomes contribute towards resilience in children’s learning and quality provision has been shown to influence the impact of risks, thereby promoting children’s wellbeing. As the built environment quality of preschools plays a role in supporting children’s learning, the study aims to explore the quality of preschool built environment from the perspectives of preschool teachers and an architect. Three preschools adapted from corner lot terrace houses in Penang, Malaysia were selected as study sites. A questionnaire consisting built environment factors designed through a crosswalk between items from the Children's Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS) as well as existing standards and guidelines relating to the built environment of preschools in Malaysia was employed. A total of three stakeholders consisting of preschool principals were interviewed to supplement the results of the questionnaire. Interview data revealed that perspectives on built environment factors making up preschool built environment quality differed between the architect and preschool stakeholders. Interview data revealed that statutory requirements and parental requirements played an intrinsic role in preschool stakeholders’ perspective of factors influencing preschool built environment. The interdisciplinary nature of this study culminates in better understanding between the fields of education and built environment, highlighting the difference between an aspired built environment for preschools with that of a realistic one. The paper hopes to provide useful suggestions for creating a better preschool-built environment where the aspired is achievable to enhance the wellbeing of children.
Keywords: Quality education, preschool quality, preschool built environment quality, preschool stakeholders
Introduction
The disposition of resilience is based on the notion of positively valued outcomes (Kaplan, 2005) and has been disputed to be intricately linked to risk (Hall et al., 2009). In studies linking the impact of preschool to young children’s development and learning, investigations point towards ‘quality’ provision influencing the impact of risks (Hall et al., 2009) whereby high quality provisions contribute positively towards children’s developmental outcomes (Margaret, Sumsion, Mulhearn, & Grieshaber 2017), enhances children’s learning and contribute towards their improved health (Majzub, 2013). High quality preschool provision thus mitigates risk for children in disadvantaged and non-disadvantage backgrounds (Burchinal et al., 2009; OECD, 2017; OECD, 2006; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). In turn, ‘quality’ is linked to the ‘structures’ and educative ‘processes’ making up the provision (Currie, 2001). These ‘structures’ and ‘processes’, deemed as ‘hidden’ curriculum encompass values and attitudes upheld within a preschool, its physical and social environment and the setting of the school which supports health and wellbeing of both children and teachers (Jensen, Dür, & Buijs, 2017). Accordingly, as preschool quality influences the impact of risk, quality factors promoting the wellbeing of children and teachers would have to be discussed in a bid to build resilience in early childhood education.
Process and structural quality in early childhood education
With the quality of preschools playing a role in early childhood resilience, UNESCO (2010) posits two ways to measure and assess quality. The first is through process dimension which highlights the relationship between children and educators (OECD, 2006; 2017) and includes children’s experience which influences their wellbeing and development (Taguma & Litjens, 2010). The second assessment of quality is via structural dimension which forms prerequisites for process quality (Slot, 2018). Indicators include class size, staff-child ratios, availability of materials and staff training (UNESCO, 2006) as well as built environment quality for young children such as buildings, space, outdoor environment and pedagogical materials (OECD, 2006; Wall, Litjens, & Taguma, 2015). As built environment quality of preschool can be deemed as a means for supporting aspects of process quality, built environment design considerations promoting positively valued outcomes in process quality measures can be seen as an effort in mitigating risk associated with adverse learning and developmental outcomes, thus contributing towards resilience in early childhood education including preschools.
Built environment factors affecting preschool quality
Built environment quality (structural quality) plays a role in supporting activities and interaction of users (process quality) that it shelters (Vischer, 2008; Wall et al., 2015). Hence, the built environment cannot be seen as a context without inhabitants and how the environment and users interact can be understood through the lens of environment-behaviour relationship (Rapoport, 1994). As definitions of quality diverge in relation to the needs of the community of users across countries and different stakeholder groups (OECD, 2012), quality cannot be universally defined. Thus, in discussing built environment design from the perspective of environment-behaviour relationship, Rapoport (1994) believes that since design includes decisions on what should be done and why, it implies that design is mainly “... problem identification and discovery and then problem solving on the basis of research-based knowledge...” (Rapoport, 1994, p.67). As aspects of process quality may be hindered if the structural quality is poor (Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer 1997; Wall et al., 2015), research-based knowledge through review of researches demonstrating positively valued outcomes on children’s learning can be used as a starting point to derive built environment factors contributing towards structural quality of preschools. Table 1 summarises these factors and corresponding findings.
Impact of built environment design on preschool quality
While prior research provides the framework for understanding factors contributing towards quality built environment in preschools via research-based knowledge which built environment specialist (architects) are acquainted with, Walden (2015) notes that expertise of school planning does not rest only on architects and engineers but also on its users. Hence, designers should have a profound understanding of user’s experience in order to suggest forms users can identify with as meaningful building blocks. As preschool built environment design necessitates comprehension of children’s development and behaviour which may be beyond the available knowledge of architects (Iwan & Poon, 2018), the perspective of preschool stakeholders namely teachers and principals on this matter would ultimately culminate in better understanding between the fields of education and built environment. This is because while architects are trained in designing the built environment, teachers are trained to promote children’s development and learning, thus gaps between both perspectives on preschool built environment quality can be filled.
Preschool quality based on preschool stakeholders’ and architects’ opinion
When it comes to understanding quality in preschool education, preschool stakeholders, namely teachers and principals are more likely to view quality from process dimension with emphasis given to training and curriculum development (Iwan & Poon, 2018) while built environment aspects are largely discounted (Abbas, Othman, & Rahman, 2016; Shaari & Ahmad, 2016). Thus, the effects of the built environment as agents for children’s development have rarely been regarded in Malaysian preschools (Mohidin, Ismail, & Ramli, 2015). On the other hand, while architects are acquainted with built environment aspects, the design of built environment should not only regard technical matters, visual expressions and form making but must also take into consideration cultural concerns (Thomas & Garnham, 2007), which in the case of preschools, include the consideration of the learning culture. Thus, the understanding of the built environment quality in preschools necessitates collaboration between architects and preschool stakeholders so that both views can be intertwined (Iwan & Poon, 2018).
Problem Statement
Though research-based knowledge can be obtained through review of prior studies, when it comes to built environment quality of preschools in support of children’s learning and development, the perspective of preschool stakeholders (teachers and principals) as child development specialist and as users should not be discounted. Since little is known on what constitutes built environment quality of preschools in Malaysia, this study examines the importance of different built environment factors deemed significant to the overall built environment quality of preschools from the perspectives of preschool stakeholders and an architect to understand similarities or differences between the opinions of both these groups.
Research Questions
Typically, research on preschool environment has been conducted independently either from the perspective of preschool stakeholders (principals and teachers) or built environment specialist (architect). In an attempt to bridge this gap, this study explores the significance of built environment factors contributing towards quality preschool environment by taking into consideration both teachers’ and an architect’s perspective. The following questions guide the study:
- What built environment factors are deemed important for inclusion in consideration of built environment quality of preschools in Malaysia?
- Are there differences between the perspectives of preschool stakeholders (principals and teachers) and architect regarding preschool built environment quality in Malaysia?
Purpose of the Study
As built environment quality of preschools play a role in children’s development and wellbeing, the study attempts to explore the importance of built environment factors deemed appropriate when considering built environment quality of private preschools in Malaysia from the perspectives of stakeholders (principals and teachers) and an architect so that issues surrounding preschool built environment quality can be addressed from both early childhood education and built environment perspectives. Private preschools were selected as not only does this sector represent the largest number of students (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2016), private preschools vary widely in operational outputs (Mustafa, Yunus, & Azman, 2014) compared to government preschools since there are no strict regulations for preschool operation in Malaysia (Mohidin et al., 2015).
Research Methods
Three private preschools in Penang adapted from corner lot terrace houses were selected as study sites. Samples were selected through stratified sampling whereby the type of preschool premise was used as a basis of the stratification. A list of preschools within Bayan Baru and Sungai Ara in Penang were identified and listed out with consecutive numbers assigned to each preschool before simple random sampling was conducted on Microsoft Excel to generate a list of the first three preschools. A questionnaire consisting built environment factors designed through a crosswalk between items from the Children's Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS) (Moore, Donnell, & Sugiyama, 2010) as well as existing standards and guidelines relating to the built environment of preschools in Malaysia was employed (summarised in Table 2). The questionnaire consisted 23 questions based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’(5) or ‘strongly disagree’(1) which inquired into participants’ agreeability on each factor’s significance in contributing towards built environment quality of private preschool in Malaysia. As this study is part of a main study, only a total of six teachers from Preschool A, two teachers from Preschool B, six teachers from Preschool C and one architect (LAM Part III) participated in this study. Three stakeholders consisting of principals from the respective preschools were interviewed to supplement the results of the questionnaire. Raw interview data were analysed through In vivo coding and qualitatively interpreted into themes while questionnaire results were analysed through descriptive statistical analysis via statistical functions in Microsoft Excel. Ethical clearance and informed consent were obtained prior to the study.
Findings
Disparity between architect’s and teachers’ perspective on factors contributing towards built environment quality of preschools
The results from the questionnaire (see Table 3) shows that on the overall, the architect agreed with all the aspects in the questionnaire being important when considering the built environment quality of preschools. In contrast, not all factors were thought to be important by teachers. Although there were differences in opinion between preschools, based on the mean scores of all three preschools, teachers seem to agree that ventilation and lighting (B5, 4.63 points) as well safety, security and health aspects in the planning section (A4, 4.55 points) and indoor environment section (B6, 4.52 points) were vital aspects contributing towards preschool built environment quality. Teachers rated the need for disabled-friendly design principles (D1, 2.27 points) the lowest of all the built environment factors, which indicates that teachers may not consider this aspect significant when considering preschool built environment quality. Image and scale (A5, 2.33 points) under the planning section received the second lowest score portraying that a non-institutional outlook and visibility of indoor activities from the outside may not be crucial aspects when considering built environment quality of preschools. When it came to the arrangement of activity areas, dedicated areas for messy activity (C3, 3.07 points) and physical activity (C4, 3.48 points) were ranked the lowest in this category.
As a whole, interview results demonstrate that preschool principals agreed with the preschool built environment playing a role in the overall preschool quality (Table 4). However, based on the interview, principals were found to discuss preschool built environment factors from behavioural, psychological, or connotative terms (Iwan & Poon, 2018). For example, in discussions on their agreeability of the role-built environment quality play in the overall quality of preschools, principals tend to connote preschools quality to aspects of safety, security, flexibility and comfort which relates more to behavioural and psychological aspects. These aspects brought up by principals also shed light into why factors which were rated lower by teachers might not be significant factors contributing towards preschool built environment quality to them. Interview results of principals are summarised as relevant texts in Table 5 which highlights the respective principal’s perspective on why factors in image and scale (A5), dedicated messy activity areas (C3), dedicated physical activity areas (C4), and disabled friendly design principles (D1) were not deemed relevant in contributing towards quality in preschool built environment.
With regards to the factor on image and scale (A5), principals felt that preschools should look like a school as compared to being non-institutional looking. They also felt that visibility of indoor activities posts security concerns and thus no activities should be visible from the outdoors. Dedicated messy activity areas (C3) were deemed a luxury due to space constrain as principals felt that art and science activities can be conducted in classrooms while dedicated water play area indoors was deemed irrelevant. Although principals generally agreed with the need for physical activity spaces, dedicated areas for this activity (C4) were similar to sentiments on messy activity area. Dedicated spaces for physical activity was deemed a luxury due to space constraints and do not make up a necessary requirement for built environment quality as these activities can be conducted in classrooms and shared spaces. Sentiments on the necessity of accommodating disabled friendly design principles (D1) were similar between all principals whereby the common response was that children with disabilities would attend special schools. As such, requirements relating to this factor were considered irrelevant. Interview data also revealed that safety, security and health aspects (A4, B6) were main factors deemed significant in contributing towards preschool built environment quality as these requirements formed part of local government statutory requirements and thus, these requirements should be met.
Statutory requirements and parental requirements play an intrinsic role in the direction of preschool built environment quality
In the interview, principals noted that safety and security aspects were the most significant factors contributing towards built environment quality of preschools as these factors relate to boundary security and fire escape measures that were part of statutory requirements and abiding by these requirements were paramount for renewal of the operating license. Nevertheless, some statutory requirements were deemed irrelevant and posted a burden financially. One principal noted that the budget required for building-use conversion from residential to commercial title by the city council in Penang could have been spent on upgrading facilities. The present predicament is explained as follows by the principal of Preschool A:
“To operate we need to have all the licenses. You know, we have to convert this building to commercial. It would be better if they (city council) let us operate without conversion. All these conversions take a lot of time and a lot of money. We have to convert the premise if not we cannot apply for license renewal...Because the actual conversion takes a lot of money, if the local or federal government give us some leeway, it would be very good for operators to operate. So instead of using the money for conversion, we can have more space to operate. We can give the children more space to run about. So, the quality would somehow be better...However, the staircase for the firefighting requirement we will follow because we know we need an emergency staircase for children to exit the preschool in case of fire. This is all for children’s safety, so it is important. But the conversion I don’t agree.” (Principal of Preschool A)
This scenario shows that while certain statutory requirements were necessary as part of safety and security measures in preschools, others compromised budgetary allocations that would have otherwise used for enhancing the existing built environment quality for children. Besides, the interview also revealed that parental demands and expectations in a way contributed towards the principal’s notion on preschool setting and the type of facilities provided in preschools. Essentially, principals felt that they have to live up to the expectations and demands of parents when setting up a preschool:
“Parents have to send the children to preschools on the way to work so the location of the preschool has to be convenient for parents as distance really counts.” (Principal of Preschool B)
“We cannot do like what they have overseas. For example, it may seem very fun to have mud play, but in Malaysia, it is not suitable. It is actually the parents who do not allow this type of play because of germs and all these sorts of things. So, a lot of things we cannot cater for the children because of the parents. They do not really agree.” (Principal of Preschool C)
As such, the overarching considerations for statutory requirement fulfilment, budgetary concerns and parental requirements may indirectly impact principals’ decisions on why certain built environment factors such as availability of dedicated messy activity areas (C3) were not considered as a necessary requirement making up built environment quality of preschools. Thus, unlike built environment specialist who base their perspective of the quality built environment on research-based knowledge, when it comes to the perspective of preschool stakeholders, the need to accommodate the various aspects discussed above impact their perception of appropriate built environment factors making up preschool quality. This finding is consistent with findings by Iwan & Poon (2018) who opined that decisions on preschool designs are partly related to cultural influences as well as regulations by municipalities. Thus, all these related factors would have to be considered as factors contributing towards the built environment quality of preschools in Malaysia. Table 6 summarises the factors related to built environment quality which were most frequently mentioned by principals.
Conclusion
The study attempted to explore built environment factors contributing towards built environment quality of private preschools in Malaysia. While the architect deemed all factors derived from research-based knowledge important, teachers and preschool principals thought differently, indicating that not all research-based knowledge input was relevant in the context of preschools in Malaysia. This scenario highlights the difference between an aspired built environment quality for preschools may be far from what is realistic to be included for assessing the built environment quality of preschools. The findings also point towards three vital considerations for the assessment of private preschool built environment quality in Malaysia. First, although may help derive factors contributing towards the quality built environment, to meet the local context definition of quality, the view of preschool stakeholders (teachers and principals) as users should be considered to provide a comprehensive understanding of why certain factors may not be relevant in discussions of built environment quality in Malaysia. Secondly, as a means for assessing built environment quality of preschools in Malaysia, a comprehensive assessment tool based on contextual appropriate understanding (Lim & Bahauddin, 2018) should be unearthed through discussions between preschool stakeholders, built environment specialist and related government officials as employment of global rating scales would not be fitting considering that most of the scales were derived in Western context where preschool conditions differ. Thirdly, as efforts to improve the quality of preschool education can be achieved only if stakeholders are conscious of factors promoting a better environment, continuous dialogues between preschool stakeholders and built environment specialist are important so that gaps in can be supplemented by in order to reach a common goal of creating better preschool built environment-one in which the aspired is achievable to enhance the wellbeing of children. As built environment enhancement contributes towards positively valued outcomes, by bringing together resources and expertise to focus on the resilience of young children’s development and wellbeing, the impact of risks can be mitigated.
Limitations
As there was no existing rating tool for evaluating built environment quality of preschools in Malaysia, CPERS was cross walked with existing standards and guidelines relating to preschools in Malaysia as a starting point to identify built environment factors relevant to the Malaysian context. Therefore, the study acknowledges that the factors included in the questionnaire may not be exhaustive and is still in the preliminary stages of development. Secondly, the study was limited to only three study sites with sample profile covering only preschools adapted from corner lot terrace residences in Penang. Preschools in other premises and states should be considered in future studies. Test-retest reliability would also be required to generalize results to a larger group. Thirdly, due to human resource limitation, inter-rater-reliability for the architect was not present and should be considered for future studies.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank USM Global Fellowship and the School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia for supporting this study.
References
Abbas, M. Y., Othman, M., & Rahman, P. Z. M. A. (2016). Pre-School Children’s Play Behaviour Influenced by Classroom’s Spatial Definitions? Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 1(1), 49–65.
Burchinal, P., Kainz, K., Cai, K., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Martinez-Beck, I., & Rathgeb, C. (2009). Early Care and Education Quality and Child Outcomes. Reserach-to-Policy, Reserach-to-Practice, 15, 1–11.
Currie, J. (2001) Early childhood education programs, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 213–238.
Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal. (2016). Children Statistics, Malaysia 2016. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from <https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=333&bul_id=NVYwaEtwM21MempVbWpBZFpxOFZHZz09&menu_id=U3VPMldoYUxzVzFaYmNkWXZteGduZz09>
Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on Children’s Play and Motor Development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21–44.
Hall, J., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2009). The role of pre-school quality in promoting resilience in the cognitive development of young children. Oxford Review Education, 35(3), 331–352.
Heschong Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship between Daylighting and Human Performance. California. Retrieved from <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444337.pdf>
Hunley, S., Schaller, M., & Oblinger, D. (2006). Learning Spaces.
Iwan, A., & Poon, K. K. Y. (2018). Architects’ and early childhood educators’ notions of quality preschool environments: case studies of award-winning Green Preschools in Bali, Berkeley, and Hong Kong. Intelligent Buildings International, 10(3), 162-181.
Jensen, B. B., Dür, W., & Buijs, G. (2017). The Application of Salutogenesis in Schools. The Handbook of Salutogenesis, 225 – 235. Springer.
Kaplan, H. B. (2005). Understanding the Concept of Resilience. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children, 39–47. Boston, MA: Springer.
Lim, P. P. L., & Bahauddin, A. (2018). Factors for consideration to achieve a contextually appropriate physical environment in Malaysian preschools. International Journal of Early Years Education, 0(0), 1–18.
Majzub, R. (2013). Critical Issues in Preschool Education in Malaysia. Recent Advances in Educational Technologies, 150–155.
Margaret, S., Sumsion, J., Mulhearn, G., & Grieshaber, S. (2017). Regulating for quality in Australian early childhood. In Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care: Approaches and experiences from selected countries (pp. 23-40). German Youth Institute.
Maxwell, L. E. (1996). Multiple effects of home and day care crowding. Environment and Behavior, 28(4), 494 – 511.
Mohidin, H. H. B., Ismail, A. S., & Ramli, H. B. (2015). Effectiveness of Kindergarten Design in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 47–57.
Moore, G. T., Donnell, L. O., & Sugiyama, T. (2010). The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS). Sydney, Australia: Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney.
Mustafa, L. M., Yunus, N. K. Y., & Azman, M. N. A. (2014). An Overview of Private Preschool in Malaysia: Marketing Strategies and Challenges. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 130, 105–113.
Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2012). Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education and Care: New Zealand 2012. (M. Taguma, I. Litjens, & K. Makowiecki, Eds.). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264176690-en%0AThis
Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2017). Educational Opportunity for All: Overcoming Inequality throughout the Life Course. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Early Childhood Education, 37, 1 – 445. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The Relation of Preschool Child-Care Quality to Children’ s Cognitive and Social Developmental Trajectories through Second Grade. Child Development, 72(5), 1534–1553.
Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of childcare. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 281–303.
Rapoport, A. (1994). On the Invisible in Architecture an Environment-Behaviour Studies Perspective. In O. Bouman & R. van Toorn (Eds.), The invisible in architecture, 66–73. London: Academy Editions. Retrieved from <https://www.google.com/search?q=On+the+Invisible+in+Architecture+An+Environment-Behaviour+Studies+Perspective&oq=On+the+Invisible+in+Architecture+An+Environment-Behaviour+Studies+Perspective&aqs=chrome. 69i57.720j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8>
Shaari, M. F., & Ahmad, S. S. (2016). Physical Learning Environment: Impact on Children School Readiness in Malaysian Preschools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 9–18.
Slot, P. (2018). Structural characteristics and process quality in early childhood education and care: A literature review. OECD Education Working Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Stansfeld, S., & Clark, C. (2015). Health Effects of Noise Exposure in Children. Current Environmental Health Reports, 2(2), 171–178.
Taguma, M., & Litjens, I. (2010). Revised Literature Overview for the 7th Meeting of the Network on Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Thomas, R., & Garnham, T. (2007). The Environments of Architecture: Environmental design in context. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
UNESCO. (2006). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007. Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2010). Early Childhood Care and Education Regional Report -Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001892/189210E.pdf
Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 231–240.
Walden, R. (2015). Schools for the Future: Design Proposal from Architectural Psychology. (R. Walden, Ed.). Koblenz, Germany: Springer.
Wall, G. (2016). The impact of physical design on student outcomes. Ministry of Education New Zealand. Wellington, NZ. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz
Wall, S., Litjens, I., & Taguma, M. (2015). Early childhood education and care pedagogy review: England. OECD, 9 – 104.
Wong, N. H., & Khoo, S. S. (2003). Thermal comfort in classrooms in the tropics. Energy and Buildings, 35(4), 337–351.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
26 December 2017
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-950-4
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
2
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-882
Subjects
Technology, smart cities, digital construction, industrial revolution 4.0, wellbeing & social resilience, economic resilience, environmental resilience
Cite this article as:
Lim*, P. P. L., Bahauddin, A., & Aziz, N. F. (2017). Building Resilience In Early Childhood Education: Preschool Built Environment Quality In Malaysia. In P. A. J. Wahid, P. I. D. A. Aziz Abdul Samad, P. D. S. Sheikh Ahmad, & A. P. D. P. Pujinda (Eds.), Carving The Future Built Environment: Environmental, Economic And Social Resilience, vol 2. European Proceedings of Multidisciplinary Sciences (pp. 224-236). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epms.2019.12.22