In the article The deaf and the classroom design: a contribution of the built environmental ergonomics for the accesibility, both authors Martins and Gaudiot, were worried in the article specifically about the deaf and what necessary things are left out in the educational built environment for the deaf showing quick fixes including sunlight, acoustics, accessibility, visualization, warning signs and also how the layout of the classroom should be open to all sorts of ways of teaching and learning for all groups of students and not be so strict or traditional or standardized.

SHTE method and participatory design were used in two different schools for the deaf to see how they did including questions, interviews, and more; students, teachers, employees, and interpreters participated. Concluding, the data showed there were many important things missing in these classrooms that make it harder for the deaf to learn. Martins and Gaudiot had suggestions and showed these two layouts that could help fix the issue.

This has nothing to do with Atlanta, but shows variables and layouts in the classrooms affect the deaf students and teachers in the teaching and learning; in this case negatively. I chose it because it looked interesting to me. I feel like it was bias in how it says the deaf are not well accommodated in the classrooms for their learning, but they only tested two schools; there are a lot of good schools for the deaf. The interior of the built environment affects people in all my annotative bibliographies.

Martins, Laura Bezerra, and Denise Mariasimões Freire Gaudiot. “The Deaf And The Classroom Design: A Contribution Of The Built Environmental Ergonomics For The Accessibility.” Work (Reading, Mass.) 41 Suppl 1.(2012): 3663-3668. MEDLINE with Full Text. Web. 21 Feb. 2016