My area of research concerns evaluation of university environments for learning in general, and college students and their assessment of their physical classroom space in particular. I know that currently, classrooms are designed and assessed in regards to how well the space supports the intended use. This “form follows function” 19th century maxim prevails today as the cornerstone of architectural design and the standard to which the built environment is often assessed. It gradually predominated the pervasiveness in America of classical style and ornamentation of the likes that, at the start of the twentieth century, engineer John R. Freeman remarked that contemporary work was ”preoccupied with aesthetics”, and “rarely thought through the question of use and function”. But in the 1970’s a broader understanding of how the users perceive the space emerged in the field of environmental psychology and successive research has shown that a person perceives his or her environment not only through it’s aesthetics or it’s utility to the function, but also in personal and social ways. Indeed, while traditional questioning of one’s environment may occur, responses are actually informed by many processes of perception. In addition, the physicality of the classroom design is the manifestation of the cultural intention of the university. Thus, within this social-psychological construct, the influence of culture is acted out. Therefore I will explore the important aspects of the cultural and social experience of classroom spaces in regards to student perception to provide a fuller understanding of classroom assessment.
Culturally, Jamieson (2003) offers that the traditional physical environment for learning was shaped for didactic instruction. Classrooms were traditionally designed for one-way, formal instruction, which also mirrored the institutional culture of the university. Indeed, many American universities function on the “United States” model, in which the head of each academic department reigns over a fiefdom of sorts where students traverse interstate to access course instruction (Jarzombek, 2004). As part of my doctoral research, I interviewed the academic head of a university undergraduate program that graduated from a doctoral program a few years ago. I inquired about her last semester in college as a student in regards to her physical classroom environment and whether the room supported the method of teaching. She replied “Yes, in a very authoritative, top down autocratic manner. It was… it was because with… with the number of students we had in that group, he [the professor] could have chosen another classroom that was more intimate. He… I, well you know, he had the power. He had the power of [the university]. He certainly could have requested another classroom. So, Yeah, I think for [the professor] it was exactly what he wanted. He didn’t have to interact with us, he could just get up and talk at us for an hour.” This remark brings light to Pouler’s comment, “Space is neither innocent or neutral: it is an instrument of the political (cited in Scheer and Preiser, 1994).
In addressing social relationships influencing assessment, Canter (1992) researches the assessment process and categorizes the many variables involved within the framework of what he calls a “Purposive Evaluation”. His framework includes interrelationships between personal perception and the physical environment within the auspices of institutional culture. The group norms directed by the intentionality of the physical environment promotes the creation of ‘rules of place’, which govern socialization within the classroom space. Thus, the architecture becomes a player in how students move about, relate with each other and engage in the learning process and it’s assessed value, whether consciously or not, can be mapped to the quality and affect of social experiences of an individual in the space.
Therefore, regardless of whether the assessment guidelines rate the physical university classroom environment in terms of utility to the teaching method or creation of an aesthetic environment, the users social and cultural perceptions of the space are entwined within the evaluative process.
Jamieson, P. (2003 May/November). Teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8 (1/2) 119–133.
Canter, D. (1992). Understanding, assessing, and acting in places: Is an integrative framework possible? In Garling, T. (Ed.), Environment, Cognition, and Action: An Integrated Approach. (pgs 191). Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Jarzombek, M. (2004) Designing MIT: Bosworth’s new tech, Boston: Northeastern University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment