By Mikael Powell, Ph.D. (© Mikael Powell 2021)
Take a moment to look around you. Observe the ceiling, and all the overhead systems that provide lighting or conditioned air or fire protection. Notice the layout of walls and imagine the subsurface network of electrical, telephone and data service. Be aware of colors, textures, materials and themes. Study the doorways and fixtures; inspect the windows and flooring. Stroll across the flooring. Now consider, if you were in school how might your learning be affected by these elements?
My domain of study is concerned with assessing the influence of the built learning environment on educational outcomes. I am especially interested in how one determines the effects of the physical space on learning for higher education arts and design curricula.
In my doctoral studies, I explore the depth of the relationship between the built environment and learning within three areas of study – Environment-Behavioral research in regards to learning, Cognition, Curriculum and Instructional design theories, and Critical Interpretation in the assessment of the built learning environment.
In general, I explore the psychology and physiology of an individual’s perception of ‘place’ as it influences learning; teaching and learning principles and practices shaped by the architecture of the learning environment; and student culture juxtaposed with a spatial design orchestrated to support institutional values. Thus, my areas of study are concerned with a comprehensive understanding of place and learning to answer the following questions: Where do we learn and how do we learn there? What constitutes the learning assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of the physical space? Who determines the methods for assessing the efficacy of the built environment for learning?
Essential to these general queries are issues that underlie both the basis of understanding learning and place, and the integration of architectural and education principles into an interdisciplinary discourse. It is through exploration of these issues that I develop the foundation for my doctoral research. I explore these issues within these Qualifying Papers by answering the following questions:
How does a student’s personal response to the built learning environment for higher education affect educational outcomes?
What are contemporary pedagogical practices for post-secondary arts and design curricula and how are they supported or hindered by the built learning environment?
What is the common rationale for determining the method, manner and values assessed in contemporary summative evaluations of physical university environments for learning?
The following is my exploration of each question and concluding remarks.
How does a Student’s Personal Response to the Built Learning Environment for Higher Education Affect Educational Outcomes?
The intuitive remark- “We shape our buildings, and afterward our buildings shape us”, led Winston Churchill’s debate on the re-building of the House of Commons in 1943. He argued that the shape and layout of the facility could determine the types and quality of communication occurring within and thus have a long-term affect on the United Kingdom. Although Churchill was accurate and insightful as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, it is primarily the purview of psychologists and architects to determine the influence of the built environment on human behavior. Within the realm of psychology, contemporary researchers call this interdisciplinary field ‘Place Science’ but the roots of these ideas go back to the mid-nineteenth century and possibly earlier. Place science is the application of environmental psychology principles that seek to understand the relationship between human behavior and the built environment. Pol (2006, 2007), a historian, identifies four stages in the development of environmental psychology from its origins in Germany in the twentieth century, to its migration to America and subsequent architectural emphasis on environmental design to the current movement to environmental sustainability. Common areas of study are way-finding, personal space and territoriality, place identity and, in recent years, environmental social awareness. Traditionally academic professionals have conducted this research with controlled experimentation.
Architectural practitioners researched ways to rate the effectiveness of higher education facilities at the very beginning of the environmental psychology movement as well. A Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE), an architectural assessment, was the response to that concern. This analysis is a relatively contemporary method (originating around the 1960’s in America) to determine whether design decisions made by design professionals are delivering the performance intended as evaluated by those who use the building. The assessment provides several benefits, both long-term and short-term. Some of these benefits include the identification of spatial problems and successes, the opportunity for user involvement and the establishment of prototypical spaces.
Much of the empirical research on how learning is affected by the built environment (e.g., Kaplan, 1995; Kats, 2006; Rashid, 2008; Reiss, 2004; Rengal, 2006; U. S. General Accounting Office Bulletin HEHS-95-61; Yik & Russell, 2001) can be categorized into areas of Personal Responses, Social and Cultural Issues, and Spatial Functionality.
Firstly, I explore those perceptions that originate in the individual that effect learning. I study personal responses, which include inherent human qualities of inborn perception of the learning environment and interactions with the space beyond. Then, I study personal traits and their compatibility to the built environment and individual need for a mood for learning.
Secondly, I explore an individual’s response to the sociocultural aspects of the space as it influences education. I review social and cultural issues perpetuated by the built learning environment in regards to a person’s perception of institutional intention as manifested by the architecture, and I synthesize those concerns into a proposed course to assist students to be aware of the sociocultural ramifications of the space, utilizing the principles of Paulo Freire. Then, to review the holistic effect of culture on an individual’s learning, I use a cultural audit to examine the social indoctrination of a student and examine how the built environment supports that instruction. Afterwards, I review social responsibility presented and encouraged by the space and how that personally affects learning.
Thirdly, I consider an individual’s reaction to how the architecture supports the use of the space. This includes the need for environmental comfort for learning and one’s perception of their physical classroom space as support or impairment to the learning process.
Finally, I offer concluding remarks.
Personal Responses to the Built Environment and their Effect on Learning
To begin an exploration of personal perceptions of the built environment and its effects on learning, it is important to understand that individuals enter a space with requirements that are both intrinsic and basic to the human condition (Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan , 1995). These needs, when satisfied through architectural amenities, can positively affect the learning process (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). In addition, a person’s personality in concert with the learning environment can support scholarship (Reiss, 2004). Likewise, the ambiance created by the built environment can support the acquisition of knowledge (Eich, 1995). Literature on the personal effects of the built environment on learning can be sorted into categories of inherent human reactions to educational spaces, personal traits and compatibility with the learning environment and creating and maintaining a mood for learning (e.g., Eich, 1995; Kaplan, 1995; Reiss, 2004).
Inherent Human Reactions to Spaces and how they Influence Education
Some personal responses to the built learning environment are fundamentally human. The amount of activities engaged out-of-doors and the importance placed in society for animal ownership is evidence to the innate attraction human beings have to the natural environment. For many millennia, experiences in wildlife terrains and domesticated landscapes were purported to impart personal benefits. Empirical researchers have documented many effects of an individual’s exposure to the natural environment and to animals (Ulrich et al., 1991). Kaplan (1995) explores the restorative benefits of exposure to natural views from the built environment with emphasis on the ‘directed attention’ component of the experience instead of the more popular stress reduction quality. He found the following:
Directed attention is necessary for stepping back from the situation one is facing, for pausing to get a larger picture of what is going on. Thus without the aid of directed attention, it is difficult to deal with situations in which the appropriate action is not immediately obvious. It is also hard to plan and to follow a plan. This leaves the individual caught up in the demands of the immediate situation, unable to transcend momentary pressures and temptations. (Kaplan, 1995, p. 171)
Windows, when properly placed within the building fenestration, can provide this respite to support learning. They also contribute to other areas in the college experience. Tennessen & Cimprich (1995) studied university students who had natural views from their dormitory windows and co-eds whose windows overlooked buildings. They found those undergraduates who had a vista to landscape scenes from their dorm room scored higher on the Necker Cube Pattern Control measure and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test that rated effective functioning in tasks requiring attention. Kellert (2005) remarked, “People continue to rely on positive contact with healthy natural systems for their physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. We have also considered ways to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of modern building construction and practice as well as how to restore beneficial connections between nature and humanity” (p. 185).
Kellert describes the positive effect of interactions with the natural environment from architectural spaces as ‘biophilic’. The two basic dimensions of this effect are organic – incorporating nature shapes and forms in the architecture and vernacular, which takes into account, culture, history and geography. Kellert also includes ecological consciousness within his definition of biophilic. Thus, Kellert (2005) explains:
Lacking adequate contact and experience of nature, the values remain atrophied or undeveloped, resulting in material, emotional, and intellectual deficits. When adaptively expressed, however, these biophilic values confer diverse physical and psychological advantages, including the greater likelihood of securing basic goods and services, of thinking critically and solving problems, of being creative and discovering, of expressing affection and developing social ties, and even of recognizing and affirming a just and meaningful existence. Each of the biophilic values developed over long periods of evolutionarily time and have persisted into the modern age because they contribute in subtle and complex ways to individual and social fitness in the ongoing struggle to adapt and survive. (p. 5)
Personal Traits and Compatibility with the Learning Environment
Another way that individual’s respond to the physical learning space is in relation to their personality. Each individual has a collection of qualities and traits that comprise his or her personhood. That personality interacts with the built environment to create an experience that ranges from supportive to detrimental to the individual’s well-being. Augustin (2009) analyzes factors of personality to discover connections with compatibility to the architectural design. In the analysis she studies seven major place-related factors of personality which include how an individual gathers knowledge (introversion/extroversion), processes information (explicit processors/implicit processor), manages life (planner/improviser), reacts to events (environmental sensitivity), directs life ( controls own fate/controlled by fate), monitors others( external monitoring) and seeks exhilaration ( sensation seeking). Each factor of personality affects the kind of physical environment in which an individual can thrive. For example, Augustin (2009) states:
People who are more extroverted relish being in sensory rich spaces with multiple vibrant colors, louder and faster music, more extreme textures, curving paths and dramatic incense. Introverts definitely do not... Introverts prefer to sit in some sort of furniture arrangement that allows them to gracefully look away if they want to break eye contact… An introvert prefers an oblong table to a round one; round tables encourage interpersonal interaction and they make extraverts very happy, but all the forced togetherness can make an introvert tense. (pp. 91–92)
Therefore, variations of tension or ease are byproducts of the fit between an individual and the built environment and furnishings. Reiss (2004, p.188) developed a hypothesis of 16 basic desires along “the tradition of comprehensive personality theories” that can be used to inform Augustin’s theory. Reiss has shown how persons organize their life to satiate these trait motives (power, curiosity, independence, status, social contact, vengeance, honor, idealism, physical exercise, romance, family, order, eating, acceptance, tranquility and saving). Most of these trait motives can be supported or inhibited by the architecture of the facility. His major hypotheses postulate that people prioritize their desires differently and that “the theory of 16 basic desires holds that what are motivating [for action] are discrepancies between the amount of an intrinsic satisfier that is desired and the amount that was recently experienced”(Reiss 2004, p. 188). Thus, educational facilities that have a variety of spaces and rooms that are not overbearing tend to favor the accommodation of the motivation brought about by individual traits.
Creating a Mood for Learning
Another way that individual’s respond to the physical learning space is in relation to their temperament. The successful student employs a disposition that supports his or her acquisition of knowledge (Cote, 1999). Cote studied college students working together on a project and rated both affect and performance. Her findings revealed that the students in a pleasant mood were more successful than students with an unpleasant affect (Cote, 1999). The architecture of the space is important in that endeavor, although not completely dominant. An individual’s personality does affect his or her mood. Yik and Russell (2001, p. 247) state, “One typically feels happy with good news, nervous before a major decision, and relaxed on vacation: Affect obviously can be predicted from the immediate context. What is less obvious is that one’s affect can also be predicted from one’s enduring personality traits”. Thus, the relationship between physical environment, performance, and mood is robust. While it seems reasonable to assume that a student might perform better in memorization when he or she is educated and tested in the same room, that hypothesis remains unproven, even allowing for the many peripheral factors involved. Eich (1995) tested event recall in college students located in three different environments (two interior spaces and one partially enclosed garden area) and rated disposition as well. Eich (1995, p. 293) concluded, “these observations imply that place dependent effects are mediated by alterations in affect or mood” and that data indicates “the presence of mood dependent memory”. As Graetz (2006, p. 15) remarks, “As students enter a classroom, they form an impression of that space and experience an associated emotional response”.
Many elements of the built environment affect mood in an individual. Chroma, saturation and intensity color in finishes and building elements have been known to influence disposition (Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994). In a healthcare setting, Zeisel (2003) found that Alzheimer patients had reduced stress and anxiety on a ward that designed to be ‘home-like’ instead of institutional. In higher education facilities, Anthes reports that students interviewed in a dim room “ felt more relaxed, viewed the counselor more positively and shared more information about themselves (2009, p. 4). Indeed, Bar and Neta (2007) found that the shape of objects, from everyday items like furniture to novel patterns, could cause a fear reaction in individuals. Contoured items were preferred while sharp items increased amygdala activation in the brain, which indicates fear processing. Bar and Neta’s (2007) findings indicate:
Humans like sharp angled objects significantly less than they like objects with a curved contour, and that this bias can stem from an increased sense of threat and danger conveyed by these sharp visual elements. We used objects whose semantic meaning was emotionally neutral, rather than semantically negatively valenced objects (e.g., a knife or a gun), and we know that people do not typically feel explicitly threatened by neutral everyday objects (e.g., a watch or a sofa). Therefore, we propose that the danger conveyed by the sharp-angled stimuli was relatively implicit. Indeed, the amygdala has been shown to respond to implicit, non-conscious cues of threat. (p. 2200)
Therefore, the architectural design for higher education facilities from fixed elements to furniture and fixtures influence mood in individuals.
An individual’s Reaction to Social and Cultural Issues of the Built Learning Environment of Universities
Examination of personal reactions to the built environment and its effects on learning must consider the sociocultural issues of the space. A university building is never arbitrary or static, rather, it is a designed machine created by the institution for the purpose of managing systems. The building architecture and furnishings are a representation of values and customs held by the university. While the built environment guides the actions of its inhabitants, those users proceed through the building and maintain their own value system. The university is contained by and interacts with a larger community and all is connected within the fabric of civilization. I compile literature on the built environments of universities and their social and cultural effects on learning into two areas. The first is user’s perception of institutional intention as manifested by the architecture. It is further explored through a pre-building assessment lesson plan that brings awareness to the issue and by a thorough review of the cultural properties of a university. The second is social responsibility as presented and encouraged by the space.
The Effect of Inferring Institutional Intention on the Learning Environment
It is indisputable in literature that a building says something to its inhabitants (e.g., Ching, 1975; Rengal, 2006) and that persons are aware of the message that architecture and furnishings relay (Piro, 2008). University spaces are notwithstanding, however, the influence that the institution may have on the individual student and that effect on the education experience is not well documented.
Devlin (2008) found that persons make judgments about forthcoming experiences based solely on the appearance of buildings. Her work demonstrated that persons, after viewing photographic slides of the exterior of medical facilities, made judgments about the quality of care they would receive and how comfortable they would be in that facility. Indeed, in earlier research, Arneil and Devlin (2002) concluded that the same assumptions are made viewing images of the interiors of physicians office waiting rooms. “Data indicated that waiting rooms that were well-lit, professional, and colorful and that contained plants, decorations, and magazines were judged higher on the quality-of-care ratings than were those that were perceived as dark, emotionally cold, and unusual looking.”(Arneil & Devlin, 2002, p. 309). Sadalla and Sheets (1993) found that in residential construction, individuals interpreted the building materials themselves (brick, concrete block, weathered wood, stucco, flagstone, and wooden shingles) as a means to judge creativity, style, and social class of the homeowner.
While persons do develop assumptions based on the appearance of the built environment, not much is scientifically explored concerning how performance is influenced by the perception. Piro (2008) remarked that the architectural security layout and surveillance equipment in schools relieved and satisfied parents, but the Mississippi American Federation of Teachers noted, “Issues such as teacher rapport with students, privacy, suppression of academic creativity and spontaneity, and the inability of parents, teachers, and students to view the recordings without a court order have often been suggested as disturbing byproducts” (p.31). Kumar, O’Malley, and Johnston (2008) studied high school students in their learning environment. They rated the attractiveness of spaces, amount of display area, level of maintenance, presence of vandalism and amount of unsupervised areas to see if those factors influenced truancy and use of tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and illegal drugs among students. Overall Kumar, O’Malley, and Johnston found that “the association of various aspects of the school’s physical environment with students’ problem behaviors is greater for 10th-grade students than for 8th- and 12th-grade students” (p. 480). The researcher hypothesized that community and home influences might affect truancy and use of alcohol and drugs in eighth, ninth and twelfth graders. They added, “Although this study is based on cross-sectional samples, the significant results for the 10th-grade sample compared to the 8th-grade sample suggest that spending several hours each day in an environment that is not enriching and welcoming takes its toll over time” (Kumar, O’Malley & Johnston 2008, p. 480).
Dutton and Grant (1991, p. 38) maintain that “the built environment has powerful influences that can squelch diversity – especially in the university setting,” and they state that “schooling is a political process that has socio-cultural consequences. Schools can never be understood as neutral sites.” Another university professor, Piro (2008) examines school environments with Foucauldian theory. Piro researches the manifestation of power through surveillance technologies and architectural layout in elementary and secondary schools, saying, “this kind of regulatory control resulted in maintaining power of one group over another”(page 30) and:
For Foucault, school may be a space deliberately designed for supervising, hierarchizing, and rewarding. Under the “scrupulously classificatory eyes of the master,” students are placed in assigned spaces that they cannot leave except on the order of the school inspector (Foucault, 1995, page 147). This hierarchizing model continues with the serialization of school subjects. (p. 42)
Not all educational buildings, of course, have the perception of institutional control. Christian Kuhn (2005) explores the success of Building 20, formerly erected on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This laboratory, was designed in one afternoon by a graduate student and constructed in six months. Although it was originally expected to be a temporary structure, it was adapted and renovated several times over fifty years. Kuhn claimed that the building was one of the most prized on campus because of its unpretentiousness.
Creating awareness for the Social and Cultural Issues of the Built Learning Environment
Therefore, a tool is needed to discern the impact of sociocultural issues and institutional intent of the built learning environment as it influences a student’s learning. Indeed, in the Brazilian elementary schools, researchers discovered the need to teach students the concept of environmental comfort, and how to relate those ideas to their personal life experiences, before they could effectively rate their school environment. These instructors used in-class materials and then latter developed a long-distance training program. Utilizing critical theories as a framework of introspection and personalization can lead to awareness of the emotions that buildings incite. In line with a critical interpretation for higher education, professors of architecture Dutton & Grant (1991) want to: “move the theory and practices of [architecture] into more critical terrain…Architecture unavoidably frames the world. It structures experience, reinforces assumptions about culture and politics, and orients attention toward certain types of knowledge and ideologies… Schools can never be understood as neutral sites…All pedagogy, by its very nature, represents some theory and thus serves certain cultural and political ends.”(p. 38) Reflective, structured instruction can nurture the awareness of elements that limit one’s ability to be truly human.
Therefore, I developed a lesson plan to train the users of the space to be critically sensitive to issues promoted and facilitated by the physical learning environment per theories of Paulo Freire (1970) in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire, who is widely regarded as the father of the “critical pedagogy” perspective of education, posited that the oppressed (students and/or faculty) must be engaged in a dialog with the oppressor (faculty and/or administration) illustrating historical conditions to evoke them to critically look at world, recognize causes of oppression and discover themselves as hosts of oppressors. When this lesson plan is facilitated by the faculty and used as a precursor to a Post-Occupancy evaluation, then it can complete the Freirian process by aiding students to, objectify and create new situations through reflective participation that evokes transforming actions (participation in the subsequent POE) enabling the oppressed to strive to be fully human (Freire, 1970). I created a program that divides this process into three lessons.
The lesson one topic: “Critically Viewing the World”, presents general information about critical theories and contemporary education epistemology. Students participate in a structured dialog and reflection about Freire’s belief that oppression can be overcome through a mutual process between the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” that acknowledges how oppression had been justified. Students prepare a concept map illustrating their perceived role in the acquisition of knowledge in their classroom and reflect upon whether their experience supports or limits their learning.
The lesson two topic: “Identifying Oppression in the Built Environment of Academic Settings”, discusses recognition of oppression in academic architecture beginning with illustrations of overt control in the architectural design of a prison and then reviewing those same elements in an unobtrusive design of a high school. Students participate in group discussion and journal writing regarding how one experiences coherence, variation, openness, light, comfort and longevity through the architecture of university surroundings (Moye, 1994) (See Figure 4 for architectural expressions of spacial elements), and then students are presented with a case study of a New York high school in which “the classroom design is [an] architecture of control that helps teachers assert their authority” (Shor, 1996). Students study the steps for critical review to gauge the severity of oppression. At the conclusion of the lesson, students will be able to recognize manifestations of intent and control in the architecture and distinguish situations when it is oppressive, be aware of surveillance issues and discuss the impact of architectural elements on the educational experience.
The lesson three topic is “Being a Complicit Host of the Oppressors, Becoming Fully Human within the Context of Educational Epistemology, Reflection, and Participation in a Transformation”. This lesson enables students to see the role of the oppressed as sustaining the subjugation, and how various epistemological models can provide substantial oppression. Lastly, they review how the built environment can support that control. Students relate these findings to their personal experiences. This lesson also describes the concept of being fully human within a higher education environment and students reflect and participate in group discussion and personal journal writing. When a faculty member or administrator presents this lesson plan prior to a Post-Occupancy Evaluation, the student act of rating the built environment becomes participation in a transformation from oppressed subjugate to actualized human. Indeed, this lesson plan can become a vehicle for a dialogical exchange, enabling all to become more fully human.
Feelings of powerlessness can be a particular detriment to achievement for post-secondary art students. Lavender, Nguyen-Rodriguez & Spruijt-Metz (2010) explains that, “Attribution theory focuses on the reasons students give for their successes and failures” (p. 200). This theory is based upon research on locus of control (LC), which differentiates between students’ expectations that occurrences happen under their control (internal), or beyond their control (external). There are many techniques to measure LC employed in psychosocial research. Specific categorizations, such as perceived academic control (PAC), rate students’ belief in their ability to affect scholastic outcomes. Several studies link students with high PAC, those exhibiting a strong belief in their ability to control their academic outcomes (internal), as more motivated to succeed and students with low PAC, those thinking that their academic success is managed by fate or other people in power, as far less inclined to perform. This finding is especially prescient for college art students because Lavender, et. al (2010) states “creativity has been positively correlated to internal LC; internals tend to score higher on specific factors of creativity, and may be more likely to find happiness in the process of creative ideation”(p. 201).
1.2a2 A Holistic View of College Culture, its Support by Architecture, and the Subsequent Effect on Individual Learning
Another tool is helpful to explore the effect of the entire college culture on a student in regard to their scholastic proficiency. Research has shown that campus culture is an important part of the educational experience at college (Hodkinson & Bloomer, 2000), so it is fitting that I examine the cultural properties of the university, employing an examination of a subculture to inform myself about university environment. Graduate orientation serves as a fundamental vehicle to conduct a sub-cultural audit of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology because it is a key program in which socializes incoming students into their new culture. In their four-year longitudinal study of college students, Hodkinson & Bloomer (2000) found that the overall campus culture plays a significant role in student learning. They noted:
Our interviewees consistently reported the positive contribution that being at college had made to their personal intellectual development. However, it was seldom possible to attribute such successes to specific strategies or techniques employed within the college, or even to explicit institutional policies. They appeared to have no obvious connection with particular teaching styles, such as whole-class teaching, group work, student centered learning or experiential learning. Rather, they were often reported and best understood as the effect of a whole college culture. (p. 196)
Therefore, campus culture plays an important role in the educational development of students and the degree to which the built learning environment is synonymous with elements of the culture determines it influence on learning.
While campus culture or “institutional culture”, as it is sometimes termed (Tierney, 1988) can be characterized in many ways, for this document it is defined as “the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups in an institute of higher education and provide a framework of reference within which to interpret the meanings of event and actions on and off campus” (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. 13). Analyzing a college through the lens of a cultural perspective provides a way to examine more fully the way of life of the students, faculty, and administration and how the institution functions as a whole (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Although there are various definitions of cultural properties, nonetheless, one can still observe the many manifestations of culture to provide insight into its impact and relevance within the web of institutional actions. Sociologists Kuh and Whitt (1988) cite post-secondary orientation events as key ceremonies and rituals that maintain the cultural properties of university subcultures.
To explore this cultural aspect of personal reaction to the built environment, I examined graduate orientation and the general campus environment as a vehicle to conduct a sub-cultural audit of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to determine relevant cultural properties both imparted to, and acknowledged by, students and highlight those that are supported by the built environment. I chose MIT because of my personal access to the program directors and the site, and because they maintain the first program of architecture in America. Van Maanen (1987), a sociologist and researcher, asked an MIT student to define the institutional culture at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The student replied, “It’s everything we aren’t tested on in the classroom” (p. 5). Therefore, I interpret cultural properties of the university through my analysis of interviews, online surveys of staff and participants, literature, observation, video, and campus tours. I triangulate my inquiries by interviewing (asking questions), then online surveying (soliciting responses from various players about same questions), then reviewing literature (looking for evidence of validation or refute in orientation documents).
Examination of MIT Graduate Orientation
Within a period of six weeks in the fall of 2011, I interviewed one graduate student co-chair of Graduate Orientation, with an associate, face-to-face and the other co-chair by telephone. I created a qualitative on-line survey and offered it to the orientation co-chairs and a departmental secretary for distribution to administration, staff, and students. The seven respondents to the survey included three orientation staff members and four students who recently attended graduate orientation. I reviewed all the graduate orientation literature and PowerPoint presentations, toured the campus, observed graduate spaces, and collected and analyzed one campus tour video and one graduate orientation welcoming speech. I also examined the general campus tour information and an internet video of a campus tour.
The Graduate Student Council organizes graduate orientation with about 25 student volunteers. This student-led series of events has grown from a one day six-event happening for 300 – 400 new students in 1975, to arguably the largest graduate orientation in the United States offering sixty events over a three-week duration with over 1000 students attending (e.g., German, 2011; MIT, 2011b). Although students produce it, the university administration provides an office for the Graduate Student Organization, a paid administrator who does bookings, and a Fellow who is dedicated to the event. In addition, all the administrative university committee chairs cooperate with graduate orientation events.
I identified the properties of the subculture at the university as expressed through the following “frequently mentioned cultural forms” (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. 17): traditions, rituals, symbols, norms, beliefs, legends, artifacts, myths, and sagas. All these forms together “describe many of the subtle aspects of experience subsumed under the concept of culture as a complex whole...” (p. 13). The information compiled represent that which the graduate organization and university administration want new students to know. I describe the findings in the two categories of information disseminated in Graduate Orientation events, and evidence of institute culture in the general campus environment.
Properties of Institute Culture from Graduate Orientation
Campus traditions are expressed in the graduate orientation publication, which perpetuates the traditional view of the school environment in a maxim coined by former university President, Jerome Weisner that “getting an education from MIT is like taking a drink from a fire hose’’ (Graduate Student Council, 2011a, p. 14). The actual fire hose is in the basement of building 26.
Kuh & Whitt (1988) describe a cultural symbol as “any object, act, event quality, or relation that serves as a vehicle for conveying meaning, usually by representing another thing” (p. 19). The co-chairs of graduate orientation say that the school mascot, the beaver, is used on all their publications. The welcoming pamphlet says of the mascot, “Tim the beaver has been the mascot of MIT since at least 1914” (Graduate Student Council, 2011a, p. 8). Another symbol used is a stylized elevation view of the “Great Dome” on building 10. It is utilized for the Graduate Student Organization logo as well as other support groups’ graphics. Indeed, the orientation organizers advertise “Dance under the Dome” as a social mixer for new graduate students during “Know the People” events (Graduate Student Council, 2011a, p. 7).
Normative behavior of graduate students in MIT culture is, I believe, expressed by the graduate student co-chairs in the following comments: “MIT is known as a savvy institute, therefore the graduate student organization had to create a quality website (German, 2011); “MIT students are notorious for being in lab all the time. The workload is horrendous, often 24 hours a day, seven days a week” (Zhang, 2011). Graduate orientation 2011 literature proclaims “MIT graduate students are known internationally due to their innovative research and remarkable work ethic. Yet many people are not aware that graduate students can play just as hard as they can work” (Graduate Student Council, 2011a, p. 8); “As an incoming graduate student you are uniquely prepared and equally ready to embark on a rewarding journey in the intense laboratory of academic rigor, technical excellence, and world-class research” (Graduate Student Council, 2011a, p. 23).
The graduate orientation organizers were adamant in their belief in the positive values of diversity, collaboration, community, sustainability, creativity, and innovation. The orientation literature indicates this as well. The orientation co-chairs stated their belief in the MIT maxim of “Mind and Hand”- that first, one needs a strong intellectual foundation before one can begin the work, and that graduate school can be a transformative force in a student’s life. In addition, an orientation co-chair stated that she believed that new students would feel less apprehensive after they mix with their cohorts (German, 2011).
Cultural legends have not been as ubiquitous as other cultural properties. The graduate student orientation 2011 publication did allude to the 1960’s fraternity stunt to measure the Harvard Bridge using pledge Oliver Smoot as the unit of measurement. It said, “But what do you do when the 364.4 smoots ± 1 ear of the Harvard bridge are just too daunting?” (Graduate Student Council, 2011a, p. 10).
Artifacts are defined as a meaning “‛stored’ in symbols” (Geertz, 1973, p127). While the student co-chairs do distribute t- shirts at orientation (donated by a local retailer) another retail item, the graduate class ring, is an important cultural artifact. Called the “Grad Rat”, in cultural jargon, it is usually purchased in the first year of graduate school (Zhang, 2011). This cultural artifact is filled with symbolism The official Balfour Graduate Student ring 2011 brochure says:
It embodies the collective, life-changing experiences and the unique graduate culture that we encounter at MIT. The Bezel represents the journey the graduate student takes at MIT… Sunrise symbolizing graduation and bright careers. “Greater than 72” representing the 72 MIT Nobel prizes by MIT community… Billboard blocking the path to graduation representing the last set of data before moving on…[and]the ups and downs of the graduate experience. The tipped over hourglass…represents the lack of free time and.. also [represents] the Infinite Corridor.” (Balfour, 2011, p. 3).
Another characteristic about The Grad Rat is the map of the MIT campus inscribed on the interior of the ring.
A myth is an unsupported belief (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). The graduate student co-chairs for Graduate Student Orientation state that many new graduate students think “Peers always have the answer” and they receive a lot of advice from fellow students that isn’t always right (German & Zhang, 2011). One co-chair said that the prevailing expectation is that MIT students are “very smart” (German, 2011). It is important to note, however, that a MIT Global Education & Career Development officer presented statistics in their graduate orientation presentation that, when considering the percentage of average graduate students rating their abilities in the top 10% nationwide, as compared to the average MIT student entering graduate school, MIT students rated their ability lower in almost every category (MIT, 2011b).
Keeping within the definition of a saga as “an historic narrative of leaders, illustrated as heroes” (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p.19), they are evidenced in graduate orientation events and its materials in two ways. Firstly, in a video analysis of a previous graduate orientation, the student leader of the group welcomed new students by saying:
My fellow students, I bid you welcome from the hallowed halls of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In these halls once walked some of the greatest innovators, leaders and thinkers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and agents of political and social change of our times. This is a place where there are as many revolutionary ideas as there are people who think them. (Barunio, 2004)
Evidence of Intuitional Culture Experienced by Graduate Students in the General Campus Environment
New graduate students are indoctrinated into the greater MIT culture through their experiences on campus, both directed and from personal explorations. This information was compiled from a video analysis of a campus tour, examination of literature about the university described in the self-guided walking tour of the MIT campus, and my photographic review of campus.
Cultural traditions are evident while walking the campus. One can note that buildings are numbered and many are contiguous. This tradition distinguishes MIT from other universities historically of its time in America. Jarzombek (2004), an architectural historian, wrote of the original design of MIT in the early 1900’s, saying that one of the design collaborators of MIT, engineer John R. Freeman, rejected:
The “United States model of putting departments into separate buildings” in which the professor in charge of a department “reigns undisturbed, largely in a little kingdom of his own” whereas the students run “much risk of colds in our northern climate, in passing from one lecture to another…[He created a] plan for a single massive building oriented toward efficiency of space. (46)
Young (1999) describes rituals as “behavioral patterns that are repeatable, have purpose, and have acquired a sense of rightness among the people who participate in them.” (p.11) An analysis of the campus tour video highlights a student docent recounting the rivalry between MIT and another university punctuated by the theft of a 130-year old, 1.7 ton cannon (Triusa, 2009). Likewise, the published self-guided tour recalls the bi-annual event of gathering to watch the sun shine down a 1/6 mile long hallway called “the Infinite Corridor” in building 7A(MIT, 2011a, p.2).
An important cultural symbol is described in the self-guided walking tour publication that states, “Seen from the courtyard, the Great dome, patterned after Rome’s Pantheon, provides the Institute’s architectural focus...” (MIT, 2011a, p. 1).
A video analysis of a student-led campus tour shows the guide outlining student norms by saying, “MIT has a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary research. Basically …you will have chemists, physicists, biomedical engineers, chemical engineers, all sorts of different stuff, all working towards finding a cure for cancer” (Triusa, 2009). Indeed, the self-guided tour literature remarks that of the almost 70 laboratories on campus, nearly all consist of undergraduates, graduates, and professors working in collaboration. The self-tour guide also states that three-quarters of students are involved in school sports and over 500 students are in organized musical groups (MIT, 2011a, p.2).
My tour of campus confirms that MIT believes in the values of diversity and community because the corridors in most buildings were replete with organizational posters and event announcements. The wall adjacent to the admissions office had a large life-size painted mural of diverse ethnic and cultural communities of people. Both the belief in the transformative qualities of the institution and the value of diversity and collaboration are evidenced in the words of the student tour guide:
This place will change your life …If you have an idea for change, you will find support here to see it through…the Media Lab works on ‘smart technologies, sort of future of the world type stuff [there is] an open atmosphere to you have all kinds of discussions between groups, disciplines. That’s the idea. (Triusa, 2009)
Illustrations of cultural sagas highlight the self-guided walking tour informational sheet. It includes a review of Everett Morss Hall, the campus dining room, and location of the Graduate Student Organization offices. The main room has seven life- sized painted wall murals from the last century, stylized with pertinent individuals and ideals of MIT. The tour literature states, “The central panel represents the Alma Mater with the world at her feet; on her left, knowledge through experiment, one of the founding principles of M.I.T.” (MIT, 2011a, p.2).
Summation
The graduate orientation program socializes students to community on a personal, university, and city level. A review of the graduate orientation events and the MIT campus shows that they are rich with cultural properties (See Table 1 for a summary of cultural properties and supporting architectural elements). The traditional view that MIT provides vast resources and access such that the educational experience is like trying to take a drink from a fire hose is memorialized with an actual fire hydrant display in one of the campus buildings. The contiguous campus building layout and numbering system is a testament to commitment of the President Richard Maclaurin, in 1916, that MIT be a new type of American campus in opposition to contemporary institutes consisting of a collection of separate, competing disciplines. Indeed, that foundation led to the widespread cultural belief in the value of collaboration and community, which is supported by bulletins boards for organizational activities in the hallways and building artwork supporting diversity. Both the “Great Dome” of building 10 and MIT’s large ionic columns are cultural symbols used extensively in university literature, with the former being a landmark for campus activities. The solar alignment of the 1/6 mile-long corridor in Building 7A is the reason for the “Stonehenge” campus ritual twice a year. Lastly, the artwork in Everett Morss Hall anthropomorphizes MIT’s ideals of the knowledge and creates the persona of Alma Mater. Accepting the premise that the entire campus culture can positively influence an individual’s educational experience (Hodkinson & Bloomer, 2000) then, an architecture that reinforces that way of life also enhances scholastic achievement.
An Individual’s Social Responsibility Embodied by Architecture, and its Influence on Learning
Another way in which social and cultural aspects of the built environment effects a student’s educational experience is when the space itself becomes an integral part of the curriculum. The built environment can work in concert with an environmentally conscious curriculum to influence educational outcomes. Place-based environmental conservation education uses the building and its immediate vicinity to provide a laboratory school experience for its students and, in doing so, emphasize the duty to care and maintain the earth. Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont offers an educational experience that is fashioned on a place-based holistic approach that fosters environmental understanding and practice. Sobel (2004) said the positive effects of this approach “increases academic achievement, helps students develop stronger ties to their community, enhances students’appreciation for the natural world, and creates a heightened commitment to serving as active, contributing citizens” (p. 7). This situation utilizes the building as opposed to the regional location as the medium affecting learning. It is important to note that this environmental conservation emphasis is a subset of ‘Placed –based education’. Rae and Pearse, (2004) generally describe a place-based approach as drawing “its key messages from the local environment (cultural, physical and historical) and encourage[ing]
knowledge sharing between learners and educators based on experience”(p. 3). It relies more on locating an educational facility in an underserved area (Gruenewald 2003) than using the building and it’s amenities to provide positive learning outcomes.
Another way in which the building is a vehicle of social consciousness to affect learning is through building sustainability efforts. One of the most prominent organizations for responsible design and construction is the United States Green Building Council which sponsors the LEED building certification program that they say provides “third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts”. Increasingly federal agencies and municipalities are requiring a level of LEED certification for their building projects. Besides the effect to students from being a vicarious participant in an open, working sustainable environment, researchers have, at least in an indirect way, documented how the building and its systems influence learning outcomes. The attention to designing, installing, monitoring, and documenting building systems in schools have yielded indoor environments that are more efficient and offer better performance.
Therefore, Kats (2006) remarks that:There is a large body of research linking health and productivity with
specific building design operation attributes (e.g., indoor air quality and
[Table 1. Analysis of Cultural Review of MIT Graduate Orientation 2011 events-NOT INCLUDED]
control over work environment, including lighting levels, air flow, humidity, and temperature)”, he adds “ The costs of poor indoor environmental and air quality in schools, including higher absenteeism and increased respiratory ailments, have generally been “hidden” in sick days, lower teacher and staff productivity, lower student motivation, slower learning, lower tests scores, increased medical costs, and lowered lifelong achievement and earnings. (p. 8)
Lastly, the built environment can influence learning when it reinforces a connection to the community. University administrators see value in creating a sense of place and, according to Chapman (1994), architects and facility planners have been asked to respect the traditional feel of the campus while enhancing communication and fellowship and bringing forth “those qualities that give a campus it’s unique, singular sense of place- the attributes that make a campus meaningful”(p. 12). Devlin et al. (2008) studied the architecture of university residence halls of traditional and contemporary layouts to see if there was a relationship between a sense of community and the architecture of the dorm. Devlin, et al.(2008) noted a significant correlation, in particular “a lower sense of community in dorms that are organized around clusters or suites. At the same time, these units in clusters are judged to be more positive in terms of basic architectural components, including thermal comfort, adequacy of bathrooms, and storage”(p. 487).
The importance of the building in effecting learning outcomes in a social way is evident in Kellert’s (2005) research on restorative environments. Kellert insists that an important part of biophilic values is vernacular design, which tailors “the built environment to the particular physical and cultural places where people live and work” (p. 165). “Building and landscape designs that affirm the spirit of a place reinforce our commitment to and stewardship for these places. Effective vernacular design is the fusion of culture and ecology within a particular biogeographical context” (p. 165).
Personal Responses to Health and Comfort in the Built Environment and Educational Outcomes
Lastly, educational outcomes are affected when a university student has to respond to deficiencies in the built learning environment. One of the metaphors used for the role of architecture in education is the ‘facilitator’ (Bradley, 1996). “When we hire an architect, we try to instill in them just two simple basic facts. If the roof doesn’t leak and the heating and air conditioning work then that is 95% of the problems associated with the building conquered – Al Reaser” (p. 105). Besides those environmental building systems usually hidden within the infrastructure, the building must be stable and arranged to accommodate educational activity. Research on spatial functionality and its influence on learning are concerned with maintaining a comfortable, accommodative environment.
It is irrefutable that when a university building is not functioning as designed or intended then student learning suffers (e.g., EPA, 2002; GAO/HEHS-95-61, 1995). Many systems operate within a building, but some of the major ones that are crucial to maintain an adequate learning environment are Heating, Air Condition and Ventilation (HVAC), Lighting and Sound Control.
HVAC systems control air temperature as well as supplying fresh air and exhausting stale air from a space. The majority of information about environmental comfort concerns pre-K – 12th grade schools. The Environmental Protection Agency (2002) reports that indoor air quality was unsatisfactory in one out of five schools and the number of schools with unsatisfactory ventilation was slightly higher. The EPA (2002) reported:
For students, lower concentrations of carbon dioxide (higher ventilation rates) were associated with higher scores on computerized tests for reaction time. There is a significant relationship between facility condition and student achievement based on test scores in 139 public schools in Milwaukee Wisconsin, in math science language and social studies. A statistically significant reduction in perceived mental performance among students was associated with increased indoor pollutants concentrations and lower ventilation rates. Studies suggest that fluctuations in temperature and humidity can have an impact on comfort and concentration levels of students and staff. Indoor air is perceived to be better when temperature and/or humidity are toward the low end of the comfort zone. While the evidence is mixed it tends to suggest an association between improved performance and lower temperatures within the comfort zone. (p. 6).
Airborne pollutants are proven to increase health risks and trigger asthma. In any major facility, the best strategies are developed with design professionals in concert with lighting manufacturers and their representatives. Of course, the lack of quality illumination can be detrimental to the learning process but not much is reported on how prevalent that is in higher education. With the rate of innovative changes in technology, trade literature provides current information and strategies.
There is very little relevant, documented information on how noise affects learning in schools. The U.S. General Accounting Office Bulletin “Report on condition of America’ schools” (GAO/HEHS-95-61) in February 1995 note that about a quarter of the nations schools list noise as a major problem. Sutherland, L. and Lubman, D. (2001) indirectly offers:
Educational research studies show that learning is dependent on the ability to communicate with spoken language and that perception of spoken language is the foundation for the ability to read and write. As much as 60% of classroom learning activities typically involve a listening to and participating in spoken communications with the teacher and other students. It would be fully expected therefore that disruption of this communication to affect student scholastic achievement. (p. 8).
Summary
In conclusion, this literature review addresses how place affects learning in higher education and is categorized in a way that respects an individual’s perception of the environment. Although much is written in a critical interpretation perspective about how one perceives power and control in school architecture, there are, nevertheless, some researchers who offer contrary opinions. Piro (2008) states that it is “probably unfair, to criticize schools because of their focus on control, discipline, and regulation. These features can contribute to the creation of a solid social fabric. Indeed, many of Foucault’s ideas on the struggle for self-freedom against forms of control and discipline have been criticized by some as extreme and anarchic” (p. 47). Even, if one fully accepts the premise of heavy-handed manipulation by the environment, I still could find no documentation on how those perceptions affect learning.
Likewise, I could locate no direct research on how student expectation of the learning experience, based upon prejudiced perceptions of the environment effects educational performances. When I reviewed research on environmental comfort and the effect on learning, I discovered it to be either, based on workplace environments generalized to an education setting, or literature related to elementary education.
In addition, it is important to note that when questioning the influence of the built environment on learning, the variable “educational outcomes” is a measure framed by values. The authority that decides for the query, what is of value to learn and test and the manner of assessment, controls the answer.
Lastly, concerns about one’s response to the built environment and educational outcomes presuppose a causal relationship between two variables. Epistemologies which encourage a linear view of learning (prevalent in earlier times), support the concept of a direct correlation between variables, i.e. better lighting or better room color or better environmental comfort leads to better learning. Another lens in which to explore the issues is within a complexity theory paradigm, which seeks to explain the sophisticated relationships of dynamic, emergent, self-organizing, recursive processes like learning (Shihui & Shaodong, 2012). Many constructivist theories of how a student acquires knowledge are congruous with complexity science (Guanglu, 2012). However, two things are important to remember. One, complexity theory may explain how people learn in an environment, but it does not prescribe that is the best way to learn. Educational researcher, Morrison says, “It is essentially a descriptive or reflective theory. To move from a descriptive to a prescriptive theory is to commit a category mistake, to mix fact and value, to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, to commit the naturalistic fallacy” (2006, p. 7). Thus, this theory is appropriate for my summative research in the post-occupancy assessment of learning environments. Second, neither does it follow that variables associated with place and learning are too interrelated and unmappable. Rather, the value of complexity thinking is in loosening the bonds of a linear view to find worth in each of the variables explored, respecting them as comprising a dynamic organism (Rose & Fischer, in press).
