School Age and Building Defects: Analysis Using Condition Survey Protocol (CSP) 1 Matrix
Building condition assessment is a critical activity in Malaysia-s Comprehensive Asset Management Model. It is closely related to building performance that impact user-s life and decision making. This study focuses on public primary school, one of the most valuable assets for the country. The assessment was carried out based on CSP1 Matrix in Kuching Division of Sarawak, Malaysia. Based on the matrix used, three main criteria of the buildings has successfully evaluate: the number of defects; schools rating; and total schools rating. The analysis carried out on 24 schools found that the overall 4, 725 defects has been identified. Meanwhile, the overall score obtained was 45, 868 and the overall rating is 9.71, which is at the fair condition. This result has been associated with building age to evaluate its impacts on school buildings condition. The findings proved that building condition is closely related to building age and its support the theory that 'the ageing building has more defect than the new one'.
[1] Syamilah Yacob. 2005. Maintenance Management System through
Strategic Planning for Public School in Malaysia. Sarjana Sains
(Pengurusan Pembinaan). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
[2] Nik Elyna Myeda, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman & Pitt, M. 2011.
Measuring the performance of office buildings maintenance
management in Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management. Vol 9 No.
3. pp. 181-199.
[3] Abdul Lateef, O. A., Mohd Faris Khamidi & Arazi Idrus. 2011.
Appraisal of the building maintenance management practices of
Malaysian universities. Journal of Building Appraisal. Vol 6, . Pp
261-275.
[4] Edwards, M. 1992. Building Condition, Parental Involvement and
Student Achievement in the D.C. Public School System. M. Ed.
Dissertation. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University.
[5] Lewis, M. 2001. Facility conditions and students test performance in the
Milwaukee Public School. Council of Educational Facility Planner,
International, Scottsdale, AZ.
[6] Earthman, G.I. 2002. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic
Achievement. UCLA-s Institute for Democracy, Education, &
Access. University of California, Los Angeles.
[7] Earthman, G.I. 2002. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic
Achievement. UCLA-s Institute for Democracy, Education, &
Access. University of California, Los Angeles.
[8] Hutchinson, L. 2003. Educational environment. British Medical Journal.
Vol. 326. Pp 810-812.
[9] Mendell, M.J., Heath, G.A. 2003. Do Indoor Environments in Schools
Influence Student Performance? A Review of the Literature. Indoor
Health and Productivity Project (IHP). USA.
[10] Bosch, S.J. 2004. Identifying relevant variables for understanding how
school facilities affect educational outcomes. Tesis doktor falsafah.
Tidak diterbitkan. Georgia Institute of Technology.
[11] Tiburcio, T. & Finch, E.F. 2004. The impact of an intelligent classroom
on pupils- interactive behavior. Facilities. 23(5/6): 262-278.
[12] Adeogun, A.A. & Osifila, G.I. 2008. Relationship between Educational
Resources and Students- Academic Performance in Lagos State
Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 5&6.
pp. 144-153.
[13] Tanner, C.K. 2008. Effect of school design on students outcomes.
Journal of Educational Administration. 47(3): 381-399.
[14] Uline, C. & Tschannen-Moran, M. 2008. The wall speak: the interplay
of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal
of Education Administration. Vol 46. No 1. pp. 56-73.
[15] Fram, S.M. 2010. One built environment: an example for school
administrators and planners. Journal of Educational Administration.
Vol. 48. No. 4 pp 468-489.
[16] Nurul Syakima, M.Y., Maimunah Sapri, Mohd Shahril A.R. 2011.
Measuring Performance for Classroom Facilities. 2011 International
Conference on Sociality and Economics Development IPEDR. Vol.10.
IACSIT Press, Singapore.
[17] Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal
Communication Approach. Sage. Beverly Hill. USA.
[18] Schneider, M. 2002. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington D.C.
[19] GAO. 2011. Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.
Report to Congressional Addressees. United States Government
Accountability Office. Mac 2011.
[20] Ministry of Education (MOE). 2010. Number of School Statistic.
Website: MOE. Access: 22 Aug 2010. Last update: 20 Aug 2010.
[21] Che-Ani A.I., Tazilan A.S.M., Kosman K.A. 2011. The Development of
a Condition Survey Protocol Matrix.Structural Survey. 29(1):35-45.
[1] Syamilah Yacob. 2005. Maintenance Management System through
Strategic Planning for Public School in Malaysia. Sarjana Sains
(Pengurusan Pembinaan). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
[2] Nik Elyna Myeda, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman & Pitt, M. 2011.
Measuring the performance of office buildings maintenance
management in Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management. Vol 9 No.
3. pp. 181-199.
[3] Abdul Lateef, O. A., Mohd Faris Khamidi & Arazi Idrus. 2011.
Appraisal of the building maintenance management practices of
Malaysian universities. Journal of Building Appraisal. Vol 6, . Pp
261-275.
[4] Edwards, M. 1992. Building Condition, Parental Involvement and
Student Achievement in the D.C. Public School System. M. Ed.
Dissertation. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University.
[5] Lewis, M. 2001. Facility conditions and students test performance in the
Milwaukee Public School. Council of Educational Facility Planner,
International, Scottsdale, AZ.
[6] Earthman, G.I. 2002. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic
Achievement. UCLA-s Institute for Democracy, Education, &
Access. University of California, Los Angeles.
[7] Earthman, G.I. 2002. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic
Achievement. UCLA-s Institute for Democracy, Education, &
Access. University of California, Los Angeles.
[8] Hutchinson, L. 2003. Educational environment. British Medical Journal.
Vol. 326. Pp 810-812.
[9] Mendell, M.J., Heath, G.A. 2003. Do Indoor Environments in Schools
Influence Student Performance? A Review of the Literature. Indoor
Health and Productivity Project (IHP). USA.
[10] Bosch, S.J. 2004. Identifying relevant variables for understanding how
school facilities affect educational outcomes. Tesis doktor falsafah.
Tidak diterbitkan. Georgia Institute of Technology.
[11] Tiburcio, T. & Finch, E.F. 2004. The impact of an intelligent classroom
on pupils- interactive behavior. Facilities. 23(5/6): 262-278.
[12] Adeogun, A.A. & Osifila, G.I. 2008. Relationship between Educational
Resources and Students- Academic Performance in Lagos State
Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 5&6.
pp. 144-153.
[13] Tanner, C.K. 2008. Effect of school design on students outcomes.
Journal of Educational Administration. 47(3): 381-399.
[14] Uline, C. & Tschannen-Moran, M. 2008. The wall speak: the interplay
of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal
of Education Administration. Vol 46. No 1. pp. 56-73.
[15] Fram, S.M. 2010. One built environment: an example for school
administrators and planners. Journal of Educational Administration.
Vol. 48. No. 4 pp 468-489.
[16] Nurul Syakima, M.Y., Maimunah Sapri, Mohd Shahril A.R. 2011.
Measuring Performance for Classroom Facilities. 2011 International
Conference on Sociality and Economics Development IPEDR. Vol.10.
IACSIT Press, Singapore.
[17] Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal
Communication Approach. Sage. Beverly Hill. USA.
[18] Schneider, M. 2002. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington D.C.
[19] GAO. 2011. Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.
Report to Congressional Addressees. United States Government
Accountability Office. Mac 2011.
[20] Ministry of Education (MOE). 2010. Number of School Statistic.
Website: MOE. Access: 22 Aug 2010. Last update: 20 Aug 2010.
[21] Che-Ani A.I., Tazilan A.S.M., Kosman K.A. 2011. The Development of
a Condition Survey Protocol Matrix.Structural Survey. 29(1):35-45.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:64663", author = "M. Mahli and A.I. Che-Ani and M.Z. Abd-Razak. N.M. Tawil and H. Yahaya", title = "School Age and Building Defects: Analysis Using Condition Survey Protocol (CSP) 1 Matrix", abstract = "Building condition assessment is a critical activity in Malaysia-s Comprehensive Asset Management Model. It is closely related to building performance that impact user-s life and decision making. This study focuses on public primary school, one of the most valuable assets for the country. The assessment was carried out based on CSP1 Matrix in Kuching Division of Sarawak, Malaysia. Based on the matrix used, three main criteria of the buildings has successfully evaluate: the number of defects; schools rating; and total schools rating. The analysis carried out on 24 schools found that the overall 4, 725 defects has been identified. Meanwhile, the overall score obtained was 45, 868 and the overall rating is 9.71, which is at the fair condition. This result has been associated with building age to evaluate its impacts on school buildings condition. The findings proved that building condition is closely related to building age and its support the theory that 'the ageing building has more defect than the new one'.
", keywords = "building condition, CSP1 Matrix, assessment,
school, Malaysia", volume = "6", number = "7", pages = "1941-3", }
