IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Introducing Animal-Assisted Intervention for Special Education in
Integrated Farming System
Teh Xian Zhi
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Zalena Abdul Aziz
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Nooriati Taib
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

193

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopment disorder that affects an individual’s social
skills, communication skills and repetitive behaviours. Due to these factors, an autism learning
environment has to be purposely-built to cater for the sensory needs of these learners. In special
education practice, animal-assisted intervention has become popular over recent years to thisend. This study aims to analyse the practice of animal-assisted intervention in an autism
learning environment with the aid of a sustainable system called an integrated farming system.
The study is conducted using mixed methods, involving content analysis of the technicalinformation and detailed drawings of an integrated farming system, as well as an online survey
about the implementation of the intervention in autism classrooms via such a system. Ourfindings show that the technical drawings for implementing an integrated farming system inthe built environment represent an architectural intervention. The online survey also shows
positive feedback from experts in autism services. The study concludes that animal-assisted
autism learning is a promising future model for special education. It also suggests that an
integrated farming system is a potential nature-based livestock farming solution to include
animals in a farm-based autism educational setting. This could serve as a reference and basis
for future architects or researchers to extend the research or implement animal-assisted
interventions in real practices.
Keywords: animal-assisted intervention, autism learning environment, autism spectrum
disorder, integrated farming system, special education

194

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a lifelong neurodevelopment disorder (Cassidy, 2019).
Ting et al. (2014) listed three characteristics that describe ASD: impairment in social skills,
communication skills, and repetitive behaviour. Autistic individuals often require a sensoryfriendly environment for effective learning due to their sensory processing disorder (Ghazali
et al., 2018). Different technologies have been integrated into the learning environment for theneeds of special students (Balmeo et al., 2014). Architects could play an important role indesigning the learning environment based on the sensory requirements of autistic individuals(Mostafa, 2014).
Problem Statement
In Malaysia, there is a shortage of autism related facilities to cater for the increasing numberof ASD diagnoses every year. According to research, the government policies pertaining to
educational building for autism is insufficient in Malaysia (Nazri & Ismail, 2016). While there
is a resurgence in the research field on nature or farm-based education, very few autism schoolsin Malaysia incorporate such programs in a farm-based setting (O’Connor et al., 2018). The
only purpose-built autism educational facility in Malaysia is Permata Kurnia, built in 2015 in
Sentul, Kuala Lumpur. This is the most relevant facility in Malaysia that incorporates greeneryin the layout design, albeit it does not have a full-scale animal integrated facility (Ghazali etal., 2018).
In many countries including Malaysia, the inclusion of animals in educational settings foranimal-assisted intervention (AAI) is still relatively new and controversial (Rud & Beck, 2003;
Uttley, 2013). Animal-loving parties might support the idea, while the opposing parties mightraise concerns of bringing animals into an indoor environment due to concerns such as safety,
sanitation, public relations, parents’ agreement, housekeeping and management (Comartin,
2018). Besides, there is a lack of technical information on the inclusion of animals througharchitectural intervention to ensure that the welfare of animals is protected.
Research Objectives
This study aims to implement animal-assisted intervention in a sensory friendly, autism
learning environment through a sustainable and passive system called an integrated farming
system. The research objectives are formulated as follows:••

To identify the benefits and challenges of implementing animal-assisted intervention in
an autism learning environment.
To examine the technical information and detailing to incorporate livestock farming
into an autism learning environment through integrated farming system.

By conducting this study, the sensory needs of autistic individuals can be catered for with
benefits from the inclusion of therapeutic animals in a nature and farm-based environment. The
study findings form a theoretical basis for experts in the autism community such as architects,
researchers and other professionals to implement animal-assisted intervention and incorporate
livestock farming into future autism facilities. This study also aims to apply architecturalintervention to fill in the research gap of animal inclusion in autism learning environments.
The technical information of an integrated farming system examined can serve as a basis forarchitects to include animals in the built environment for AAI without sacrificing the welfareof animals. By completing this study, we hope to address a gap in the research aboutincorporating animal-assisted intervention in special education, by showing how vertical
livestock farming can be integrated into a school compound, especially in urban or sub-urban
areas where land size and space are limited.

195

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Literature Review
In special education, animal-assisted intervention (AAI) is used to assist individuals with
autism spectrum disorder in their learning development (Brelsfordet al., 2017), bringing
improvement in social interaction and affection to other people (Ferwerda-Van Zonneveld etal., 2012; O’Haire et al., 2013). Animals have been used to assist humans for a long time
(Macauley, 2006; Trivedi & Perl, 1995). The first practitioner to use animals in therapy
sessions was Levinson, a child psychologist, in the 1960s. The pioneering work of Levinson
has contributed to the progress of animal-assisted intervention (AAI) in various fields,
including special education in autism. The common choices of animals include dogs, cats,horses, guinea pigs, rabbits, turtles, birds, fish, and many more (Comartin, 2018). Besides,
research has shown that exposure to nature and greenery contributes to an improvement incognitive, emotional and physical abilities (Barakat et al., 2019; Birkeland, 2016; O’Connor etal., 2018; Reeve et al., 2015). There is also a resurgence in research in the benefits of outdoor
learning (Entrich, 2014). These could serve as a theoretical foundation for a farm-based
education with the inclusion of therapeutic animals.
For the purpose of introducing AAI in special education, an integrated farming system (IFS) is
studied as a form of livestock farming to be practised in an autism learning environment. IFS
is a sustainable system that relies on the direct use of fresh livestock manure in fish culture for
fertiliser (Little & Edwards, 2003). This system ensures a “zero waste” policy through productrecycling, which can be economical and ecological in the sustainable development (Fawcett,1990). In special education, an IFS allows the combination of a fish subsystem with different
types of livestock that can provide therapeutic effects to autistic students.
In Malaysia, integrated farming systems have been practised by farmers since the 1930s(Ahmad, 2001). In IFS, the livestock shed is built with slatted flooring directly over the fish
pond so that the manure can drop directly into the pond and stimulate phytoplankton production(LiveCorp & Meat & Livestock Australia, 2008). Through photosynthesis, phytoplankton willproduce dissolved oxygen to be consumed by the fish. However, an overabundance ofphytoplankton should be avoided to maintain an optimum environmental condition for fish
growth or survival. This controlled environment can be achieved by controlling the density ofanimals which in turn controls the amount of manure loaded into the pond (Sevilleja et al.,2001). In other words, while a higher number of animals is better for AAI in the autism learning
environment, the number should not exceed the recommended number to avoid an adverse
effect for fish growth in the pond.
MethodThis study was conducted by using a mixed methods approach through both content analysis
and online survey. Search engines such as Proquest, Google Scholar and Research Gate wereused to obtain secondary data by previous researchers. The selection of material is mainly
based on professional journal articles, books and conference proceedings.
Qualitative Method
Under qualitative research, the technical information of IFS was examined through content
analysis. Since IFS is typically practised in rural areas, human-animal cohabitation design andautism-friendly design were applied to propose a common solution to implement IFS into asensory-friendly, autism learning environment. Table 1 shows the summarised criteria thatneed to be fulfilled for this. The technical information on IFS determines the boundary196

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

conditions for the inclusion of animals in an autism learning environment. Human-animal
cohabitation design ensures a healthy connection between humans and animals, while autism
friendly design provides the approaches to realise such integration in a farm-based autism
school. Referring to the concepts and theoretical drawings from other researchers, detailed
drawings were adapted and reproduced with the aid of AutoCAD.
Table 1: Criteria to implement IFS in an autism learning environment
Criteria
Technical information on IFS (Little& Edwards, 2003)

Human-animal cohabitation design

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Autism friendly design

•
•
•
•
•

Description
Depth of fishpondArea of fish pond
Density of livestock to be raised per area offish pond
Floor area required per livestock
Natureorfarm-based
environment(Chutchawanjumrut, 2015)
Connection between human and animals forsensory stimulation (Jon Coe Design, 2014)
Environmental enrichment (Alshaheen,
2019)
Curvilinear layout
Natural ventilation
Acoustics
Biophilic element
Natural building materials

Quantitative Method
The findings from the qualitative methods were translated into a questionnaire and distributed
to the designated target groups through Google Forms. The online survey consists of 15
questions and was completed by 47 respondents. The personal information of these respondents
is kept confidential, but 70% were special education teachers, 15% were the staff from the
National Autism Society of Malaysia, 9% were other professionals in autism services and 6%
were from other fields. On average, the majority of the respondents had below three years ofexperience in autism services. The summarised results are tabulated in Table 3 and discussed
in relation to the research objectives. The online survey gives deeper insights and a morecomprehensive picture of the study of animal-assisted autism learning environments via
integrated farming system from the opinions of individuals with experience in autism services.
Findings
The summarised results provide a suggested solution to the implementation of AAI in a farmbased autism learning environment via IFS, as supported from the opinions of different experts
in the field.
Implementation of Integrated Farming System (IFS) in an Autism Learning Environment
In order to adopt an integrated farming system into an autism learning environment,
requirements of IFS are fulfilled, and human-animal cohabitation design strategies are applied
to integrate IFS with autism-friendly architecture. Table 2 shows the technical information on
IFS.

197

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 2: Technical information of IFS
Types of animals
Ducks
Chickens
Goat/Sheep• All day• Night only

Low density (nos)
3-5
5-15

High density (nos)
15-20
20-35

2
4

4
8

Area of animals (m2)
0.45
0.30
3.00

(District Livestock Development Office, 2012; Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, 2010; Gupta & Noble, 2001; Tripathi & Sharma, 2001)
The three farm animals selected – ducks, chickens and goats – are the common farm animals
suitable to be included in IFS as well as acting as therapeutic animals in an autism care farm.
The density of animals raised on a shed above the fish pond determine the amount of manure
loaded into the pond and should be decided carefully. Lower density of animals may ease themanagement, but this creates lower harvest of livestock products. In contrast, higher density ofanimals increases the harvest and creates more chances of interaction with the autistic students
but requires more manpower in management. Nevertheless, the recycling properties of an
integrated farming system very much ease the management and livestock handling processcompared to the practice of individual livestock farming system. Hence, as long as the area offish pond allows, it is good to raise high density of livestock. In certain scenario, animals are
released from their sheds into the field during daytime and only kept at the sheds during night
time. In such cases, the density of animals should be decided based on the recommended figure
as shown in Table 2. Next, the data presented under the “area per animal” shows the spacerequired by an animal when it is fully grown. If the design permits, it is always good to provide
a larger space than the minimum requirement.

(a) IFS practised by farmers at rural areas(Sevilleja et al., 2001)(b) Curved ranch layout by Temple Grandin(Grandin, 2001)(c) Human-animal cohabitation design by Jon Coe (Jon Coe Design, 2014)
Figure 1: Theoretical drawings by other researchers

198

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

According to research, a curved layout is autism friendly due to more fluidity in circulation(Mostafa, 2014), and also animal friendly because animals are more attracted to curved
structures in animal psychology (Grandin, 2001). This knowledge is applied by Grandin in her
livestock farming design (Figure 1b).
Referring to the technical information in Table 2 and theoretical drawings in Figure 1, autism
classrooms are improvised as typical modules slotted into a curved layout of farm grids where
animals are kept in their respective sheds (Figure 2). There is not a single best recommended
size for the classroom modules or teacher-student ratio due to the diverse needs of autistic
students along the spectrum. As a general guide, the ratio can range from 1:15 to even 1:1(Zarghami & Schnellert, 2004).

Figure 2: Improvised detailed drawings of IFS in a farm-based autism learning environment
In the improvised drawings shown in Figure 2, animals are raised in an open ventilated shed ata farm-based environment with perimeter planter box. The types of interaction, either active or
passive, between autistic students and the animals depend on the types and sizes of the animals.
Bigger-sized animals like goats are kept at the ground floor over a one-meter depth fish pond
for easy management. In such design, the connection between humans and animals is passive
as it only provides visual and sound stimulation to the autistic students in the classrooms
located at upper levels.
Smaller animals such as rabbit and guinea pig can be integrated with the classroom at upper
levels and form active connection between the two parties. Students will be able to interact
with the animals by touching and holding them inside the classroom, where the animals are
acting as “social lubricant” for the students. However, the limitation of an animal integrated
classroom is the difficulty in applying integrated livestock-fish farming system as building
separate fish ponds in between every classroom is not efficient and will be cost intensive.
Hence, the animal shed is simply built with slatted timber above floor level with a manure199

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

collecting system below for easy manure disposal. For cleaning, water can be splashed at theslatted timber and allow water to run through and rinse over the plastic tray to remove existing
dirt and unpleasant scent.
Analysed Results from the Online Survey
As shown in Figure 3, the survey found that the top three farm animals selected by the
respondents are rabbit, chicken and horse. 83% of the respondents selected “rabbit” as theirchoice of animals in AAI, which suggests that smaller animals are still generally preferred bymost of the respondents to be raised in an autism school. However, if the school has a large
compound, even large animals like horses can be included to be part of the animal-assisted
program.

Figure 3: Suitability of animals for AAI in an autism learning environment
In the online survey, opinions on the benefits of integrating livestock farming or animalassisted intervention in a farm-based autism school were gathered, as shown in Figure 4. The
top three benefits chosen by the respondents include, “social improvement – 85.1%”, “student
engagement – 78.7%” and “reduce stress and anxiety – 78.7%”. Further, 31.9% of the
respondents chose “reduce problematic behaviour” to be among the benefits. The results
suggest that the inclusion of therapeutic animals in an autism learning environment can benefit
autistic students in many aspects, especially in social interaction and mental and behavioural
management.

Figure 4: Benefits of livestock farming/AAI in a farm-based autism school
Figure 5 presents the common challenges to integrate livestock farming or animal-assisted
intervention (AAI) into a farm-based autism school. The findings show that 72.3% of the200

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

respondents rated “animal care outside of school hours” to be among the top challenges. Next,
66% of the respondents were concerned about the animal welfare as this is a common issue ofanimal inclusion in a learning environment. Also, there will be students’ allergy issues if thehygiene of animals is not properly maintained. Further, 42.6% of the respondents raised
concern on “animal manure handling” if animals are included in autism classrooms for animalassisted intervention.

Figure 5: Challenges of livestock farming/AAI in a farm-based autism school
Discussion
For the benefits of animal-assisted intervention, in autism care farms autistic individuals caninteract with animals such as horse, goat, chicken, pig, dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, cow, gooseand other small animals (Ferwerda-Van Zonneveld et al., 2012). However, not all animals canbe brought into a learning environment in a school setting. The types of animals to be selected
for animal-assisted intervention in an autism school largely depend on the suitability of theanimals in the learning environment. Large-sized animals are often excluded in the selection
process due to insufficient space provision in the school, especially in urban areas. Also,
animals such as pigs are often avoided because autistic individuals can be overwhelmed by theintense scent. Next, while dogs and cats can be included for AAI, they are not productive
livestock that can provide income through livestock farming. Hence, the improvised detailed
drawings in Figure 2 only include therapeutic animals like goats, rabbits and guinea pigs.
Nevertheless, as a general guide, if other animals are to be included for AAI, the principles of
IFS can be followed based on the requirements of the specific animals in the system.
Discussion on Content Analysis
Autistic students can interact with the therapeutic animals in two manners – one in an active
connection, and another one in a passive connection. Among the animals in discussion, goats
are the larger animals to be included in the autism learning environment. Considering thedifficulties of bringing the goats to upper levels of the classrooms, they are only raised at the
ground floor in an integrated goat-fish farming system for easy management. As the floor areain the ground floor is reserved for IFS, the classroom modules are only built starting at firstfloor level. Hence, students at upper levels can only interact with the goats at ground levelpassively from visual and sound stimulation. For direct interaction with therapy goats, students
can come to the goat shed at the ground floor for the proven benefits of improving moods andoverall quality of life (Harada et al., 2019).

201

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Next, participation in livestock farming can be part of the animal-assisted program. Anothertype of livestock that can be included in an autism school is chickens. Due to their small size,
chickens can be raised in an integrated chicken-fish farming system in the upper levels of thevertical farm grid as the transport and management of small-sized livestock is not too difficult.
However, as a fish pond is required in IFS, there should be space provision for the depth of the
fish pond. Similarly, the density of chickens to be raised above the fish pond is restricted by
the size of fish pond to maintain a desirable amount of manure loaded into the pond. Therefore,
even if the shed is big enough to accommodate a higher density of livestock, the density should
be limited based on the specific requirements of the livestock presented in Table 2.
Nevertheless, it is recommended to build the shed bigger than the minimum floor area torespect the “social contact” between the livestock. This ensures that the livestock are notcramped within a limited space as in intensive industrial farming (Blecha, 2007). If the spaceprovision permits, a garden can be built beside the fish pond to release the chicken into thefield to provide environmental enrichment for their well-being.

Figure 6: Animal interaction in an animal-assisted autism learning environment
Therapeutic animals recommended to be integrated with the autism classroom for AAI include
rabbits and guinea pigs. This is because they are lazy and gentle animals which will not be
overactive and require much care. Figure 6 shows the improvised plan layout of autism
classroom modules inserted into the curved layout of farm grids. As discussed in the findings,
a curved layout can bring mutual benefits to autistic students in their sensory needs, as well asanimals in their natural behaviour. The animal sheds are built in between every classroom202

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

module to allow interaction between students and animals to occur in an active manner. The
farm grid design creates a farm-based environment surrounded by greenery from the perimeter
planter box to maintain a healthy environment for the captive animals. Students can actively
interact with the animals by touching and holding them inside the classroom. This could
improve their social interaction with other students in the presence of therapeutic animals(O’Haire et al., 2014). The limitation of this approach is the difficulty in applying IFS with theclassroom as the system requires a big size fish pond to collect the livestock manure in an
automatic process. In this case, the manure collected from the manual collection system below
the animal sheds can either be disposed of or manually loaded into the fish pond as fertiliser.
The improvised curved layout with autism classroom modules inserted into the farm grid isdeemed to be sensory friendly to autistic individuals. As shown in Figure 7, the wayfinding is
simple and straightforward to be comprehended by autistic individuals. As suggested byvarious research, autistic people can be stressed by sudden turns in transition and circulation(Marchi, 2013). In contrast, a curvilinear layout ensures a smooth circulation without deadcorners, avoiding stress and anxiety experienced by autistic people in circulation. Additionally,ramps can be built as a form of vertical transportation as an alternative to staircases. Autistic
individuals prefer to use ramps over staircases in terms of balance and body awareness (Marchi,2013). The use of outdoor ramps allows users to enjoy the outdoor scenery in circulation.

Figure 7: Wayfinding in an animal-assisted autism learning environment
Acoustics is another design criterion in autism sensory design (Mostafa, 2014). One of thedesign approaches for autism classrooms is to locate quiet rooms to be accessed directly fromthe classroom. This allows agitated autistic students to calm down in the quiet room during203

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

behavioural meltdown. Also, quiet rooms can be used for one-to-one quiet learning if
necessary. As an approach in acoustic design, quiet rooms and services rooms such as storage
and restrooms can be located in between the classroom modules, similar to the animal sheds,
to act as sound cushion (Figure 8).
The perimeter planter box at the farm grid is another greenery system that can aid in acousticalcorrection. Basically, the sound waves from the neighbourhood can be dissipated by the plantleaves through mechanical vibration (Iannace et al., 2012; Iannace et al., 2013). This canenhance the learning environment as autistic individuals can be sensitive to excessive soundstimulation. By achieving these sensory friendly requirements, autistic students are enabled tobenefit from animal-assisted intervention in a farm-based autism learning environment.

Figure 8: Sound cushion in an animal-assisted autism learning environment
Discussion on Online Survey
The results from the online survey are summarised and presented in Table 3. The discussion
compares the findings with the preliminary studies and the results from the content analysis.

204

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 3: Discussion on the findings from online survey
Analysed results
Opinions on nature/farm-based education:• Nature exposure is essential – 95.7%• Farming and AAI is effective –93.6%• Fish rearing is beneficial – 91.5%
Top three farm animals for AAI:
• Rabbit – 83%• Chicken – 42.6%• Horse – 40.4%•••

Top three benefits of livestock farming/AAI:
Social improvement – 85.1%
Student engagement – 78.7%
Reduce stress and anxiety – 78.7%
Top three challenges of livestock
farming/AAI:• Animal care outside of school hours– 72.3%• Students’ allergy issue – 66%• Animal welfare concerns – 66%
Opinions on integrated farming system(IFS):• Feasibility of IFS – 42.6% agree;
46.8% neutral; 4.3% disagree• Incorporating IFS in autism schools
given proper support and facilities –100%• Livestock farming/AAI as the future
direction of special education –89.4%

Discussions
The findings concur with the preliminary
studies where the majority of the respondents
agree that nature exposure is essential for thewell-being of autistic individuals. Besides,
since most agree that fish rearing andlivestock farming is effective, it gives asupporting evidence to implement IFS.
The findings show that small animals are
preferred for animal inclusion in theclassrooms to assist learning. However, if
space is not restricted, even large animal likehorse can be raised for AAI, but it would be
more challenging to practise IFS with large
animals.
The top benefits are mainly mental andsocio-emotional benefits. Nevertheless,when one skill is improved, other skills will
improve simultaneously as they are allinterrelated.
The primary concern of animal care should
be solved by having a management team tohandle the housekeeping of animals. Next,
hygiene of animals should be ensured to
avoid students’ allergy issue. Since IFS canautomatically dispose the manure into thefish pond, it might be a good solution.
The findings show that IFS is still new tomost respondents as the results on feasibility
is a mixture of enthusiasm and scepticism.
Nevertheless, the majority of respondents
believe that AAI is the future direction of
special education, indicating the growing
popularity of AAI in autism services. Moreresearch can be done to further improve thepracticality of IFS in an autism learning
environment.

Recommendations
As suggested by the respondents in the online survey, the government should provide sufficient
support and facilities in order to implement AAI in autism schools through IFS. Research on
IFS can also be extended to enhance its feasibility and practicality. With new emerging
technologies and sustainable system, different approaches and methods can be explored toinclude animals in a building. For future recommendation, animals’ behaviour can also be
further studied with animal specialists to create a healthy environment that allows interaction
between the human occupants and captive animals. Also, there is a need for a more extensive
study that integrates the recommended animals into actual autism classrooms with broader

205

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

participants in the sample to increase the accuracy of the benefits and challenges of IFS. The
technical information and improvised drawings of IFS in this research can serve as a basis orreference to future architects or researchers to improve the practicality and eventually
implement the system in real practices. Future research in this area should also seek to include
input from the learners intended to benefit from the IFS support system. This information
would complement the more technical input from autism experts, and is likely to provide
additional insights and suggestions for implementing the IFS system in a user-friendly manner.
Conclusion
While livestock farming and AAI are still relatively new in Malaysia’s special educational
field, it is a potential model for future direction as the effectiveness of AAI has been proven in
the research field. Nevertheless, this study provides the possible solution to implement AAI inan autism learning environment through IFS and architectural intervention, as summarised in
the conceptual diagram in Figure 9.
An integrated farming system (IFS) is self-sustained due to the recycling of animal wastes into
the fish pond as fertiliser. The water from the fish pond can become a convenient water source
for the plants and animals. Besides, the farm grids with perimeter planter box creates a green
and healthy environment for the captive animals and autistic students. The farm grid design isalso complemented with a lot of environmental benefits, such as sun shading, acousticalcorrection, cross ventilation and filtering air pollutants (Figure 9). This ensures the well-being
and mental health of the livestock serving as therapeutic agents for animal-assisted
intervention. The concept of a vertical farm also allows animals to be integrated with theclassroom modules in a farm-based autism school, especially in urban areas where land islimited. In conclusion, this study adds value to the research field on farm-based educationalmodels in special education. It is a step forward to a more inclusive society, where the needsof special groups can be included in the design process of an educational architecture.

206

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Figure 9: Conceptual diagram to summarise animal-assisted intervention in an autism
learning environment via IFS

207

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Acknowledgements
We appreciate the cooperation given by the respondents who participated in the online survey.
We would also like to express gratitude to the support given by Universiti Sains Malaysia to
conduct this study. Finally, the support from 203.PPBGN.6711669 Fundamental Research
Grant Scheme under Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia is appreciated.

208

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

References
Ahmad, R. S. H. (2001). Fodder-fish integration practice in Malaysia. In M. Halwart, J.
Gonsalves, & M. Prein (Eds.), Integrated agriculture-aquaculture: A primer, FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 407 (pp. 33–36). Food & Agriculture Org.
Alshaheen, R. (2019). Post-Zoo design : Alternative futures in the anthropocene. ArizonaState University.
Balmeo, M. L., Nimo, E. M. A., Pagal, A. M., Puga, S. C., ArisDafQuiño, & Sanwen, J. L.
(2014). Integrating technology in teaching students with special learning needs in the
SPED schools in Baguio City. IAFOR Journal of Education, 2(2), 149–178.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.2.2.05
Barakat, H. A. E. R., Bakr, A., & El-Sayad, Z. (2019). Nature as a healer for autistic children.
Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(1), 353–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.014
Birkeland, J. L. (2016). Net positive biophilic urbanism. Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, 5(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0034
Blecha, J. L. (2007). Urban Life with livestock: Performing alternative imaginaries throughsmall-scale urban livestock agriculture in the United States. University of Minnesota.
Brelsford, V. L., Meints, K., Gee, N. R., & Pfeffer, K. (2017). Animal-assisted interventionsin the classroom—a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14070669
Cassidy, M. K. (2019). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Architecture for autism. Journal ofChemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Chutchawanjumrut, T. (2015). The zoological paradox. Syracuse University.
Comartin, K. P. (2018). Is man’s best friend a best practice in public education? Animalassisted interventions in classrooms and school-based therapeutic settings. Alliant
International University.
District Livestock Development Office. (2012). Goat farming technical manual. Retrieved
from https://www.jica.go.jp/nepal/english/office/others/c8h0vm0000bjww96att/tm_7.pdf
Entrich, S. R. (2014). German and Japanese education in the shadow – Do out-of-school
lessons really contribute to class reproduction? IAFOR Journal of Education, 2(2),17–53. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.2.2.01
Fawcett, R. H. (1990). Research and education for the development of integrated croplivestock-fish farming systems in the tropics. Agricultural Systems, 32(3), 293–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521x(90)90008-e
Ferwerda-Van Zonneveld, R. T., Oosting, S. J., & Kijlstra, A. (2012). Care farms as a shortbreak service for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. NJAS - Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences, 59(1–2), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2012.01.001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). Simple methods foraquaculture: Manuals from the FAO training series (2nd ed.). Food & Agriculture
Org.

209

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Ghazali, R., Md. Sakip, S. R., & Samsuddin, I. (2018). The effects of sensory design on
autistic children. Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 3(14), 68.
https://doi.org/10.21834/ajbes.v3i14.165
Grandin, T. (2001). Basic curve design for cattle handling, cattle yards, and corral designs.
Retrieved December 23, 2019, fromhttps://www.grandin.com/design/blueprint/basicurv.html
Gupta, M. V., & Noble, F. (2001). Integrated chicken-fish farming. In M. Halwart, J.
Gonsalves, & M. Prein (Eds.), Integrated agriculture-aquaculture: A primer, FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 407 (pp. 49–53). Food & Agriculture Org.
Harada, T., Ishizaki, F., Nitta, Y., Miki, Y., Numamoto, H., Hayama, M., … Nitta, K. (2019).
Relationship between the characteristics of therapy goat and children and older
people. International Medical Journal, 26(5), 405–408.
Iannace, G., Maffei, L., & Trematerra, P. (2012). On the use of “green materials” for the
acoustic correction of classrooms. Proceedings - European Conference on NoiseControl, (May 2014), 89–94.
Iannace, G., Trematerra, A., & Trematerra, P. (2013). Acoustic correction using green
material in classrooms located in historical buildings. Acoustics Australia, 41(3), 213–
218.
Jon Coe Design. (2014). Territory wildlife park master plan. Retrieved December 22, 2019,from http://joncoedesign.com/zoo/twp_plan.htm
Little, D. C., & Edwards, P. (2003). Integrated livestock-fish farming systems. Food &Agriculture Org.
LiveCorp, & Meat & Livestock Australia. (2008). Australian goat manual for Malaysian
farmers. Livecorp.
Macauley, B. L. (2006). Animal-assisted therapy for persons with aphasia: A pilot study.
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43(3), 357–365.
https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2005.01.0027
Marchi, L. (2013). Designing for adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Optimized
live.work.play.learn environments. Clemson University.
Mostafa, M. (2014). Architecture for autism: Autism aspectssTM in school design. ArchnetIJAR, 8(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i1.314
Nazri, N. A., & Ismail, Z. (2016). Educational building facilities for children with autism in
Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi, 78(5–2), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v78.8489
O’Connor, J. T., Silkey, J. A., & Bonomo, L. E.-R. (2018). Designing and building active
outdoor learning stations : Teaching STEM concepts at a farm-nature preschool forchildren with exceptional needs. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqpall/1033
O’Haire, M. E., McKenzie, S. J., Beck, A. M., & Slaughter, V. (2013). Social behaviors
increase in children with autism in the presence of animals compared to toys. PLoS
ONE, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057010
O’Haire, M. E., Mckenzie, S. J., Mccune, S., & Slaughter, V. (2014). Effects of classroom
animal-assisted activities on social functioning in children with autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 20(3), 162–168.
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2013.0165

210

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Reeve, A., Desha, C., Hargreaves, D., & Hargroves, K. C. (2015). Biophilic urbanism :Contributions to holistic urban greening for urban renewal. Smart and Sustainable
Built Environment, 4(2), 215–233.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2014-0057
Rud, A. G., & Beck, A. M. (2003). Companion animals in Indiana elementary schools.
Anthrozoös, 16(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992134
Sevilleja, R., Torres, J., Sollows, J., & Little, D. (2001). Using animal wastes in fish ponds.
In M. Halwart, J. Gonsalves, & M. Prein (Eds.), Integrated agriculture-aquaculture:
A primer, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 407 (pp. 121–124). Food & Agriculture
Org.
Ting, X. N., Lee, L. W., Low, H. M., Kok, H. C., & Chee, K. C. (2014). Prevalence,
diagnosis, treatment and research on autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in Singapore
and Malaysia. International Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 82–92. Retrieved
from http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com
Tripathi, S. D., & Sharma, B. K. (2001). Integrated fish-duck farming. In M. Halwart, J.
Gonsalves, & M. Prein (Eds.), Integrated agriculture-aquaculture: A primer, FAO
fisheries technical paper 407 (pp. 45–48). Food & Agriculture Org.
Trivedi, L., & Perl, J. (1995). Animal facilitated counseling in the elementary school: A
literature review and practical considerations. Elementary School Guidance &Counseling, 29(3), 223–234. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42871169
Uttley, C. M. (2013). Animal attraction: Including animals in early childhood classrooms. YC
Young Children, 68(4), 16–21. Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1439083227?accountid=14645
Zarghami, F., & Schnellert, G. (2004). Class size reduction: No silver bullet for special
education students’ achievement. International Journal of Special Education, 19(1),89–96. Retrieved from http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com
Corresponding author: Zalena Abdul Aziz
Email: zalena@usm.my211