The Sense of Place in the Undergraduate Classroom and Non-traditional Coursework, by Mikael Powell

See

http://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/education_dissertations/20/

or

http://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=education_dissertations

A classroom, as a physical reality, is shaped by human perspectives (Steele, 1981; Tuan, 1979).  The online lexicological website, Oxford Dictionaries, includes in its definition of the word “geography” that it is “the study of the physical features of the earth… and of human activity as it affects and is affected by these” (Geography, 2015).  Therefore, being a geographer, Yi-fu Tuan (1979) defined place as both a location and a perception.  He said, “As location, place is one unit among other units to which it is linked by a circulation net…Place is not only a fact to be explained in the broader frame of space, but it is also a reality to be clarified and understood from the perspectives of the people who have given it meaning” (p. 387).  Thus, the human perspectives are two-fold.  They spring from the personal experiences attributed to the classroom by an individual and from that individual’s experience of the shared environment. 
            One way that researchers have studied the physicality of a room (its material location and spatial features) and student and teacher perceptions, is by analyzing the use of artifacts.  These are physical objects that either carry meaning themselves, or impart an impression (e.g., a projection screen, or an ornate lectern, respectively), written materials that give a singular, short   message, or lengthier printed items (e.g., a supplementary graph, or a textbook, respectively), virtual constructs (e.g., some types of gestures) and, ambient features (e.g., room temperature).  In addition, these objects in the classroom environment must be relevant to pedagogical and knowledge sharing purposes (Carter-Ching, Levin & Parisi, 2004).  In order to examine the effects of remedial responses to the classroom on the teaching and learning process, I reviewed the use of artifacts in the case study of this research (in Chapter Four) to “investigate their relationships to pedagogical goals” (p. 10).  I utilized the framework put forward by Carter-Ching, Levin and Parisi (2004), who developed a taxonomy that categorized the physical undergraduate classroom into six teaching artifacts.  Unlike earlier work that focused on teacher gestures or tools (Roth, 2001), they expanded the list to include the classroom, furniture, written materials, and ambient conditions mentioned above.  Artifacts, such as concrete carriers, are items that do not embody knowledge in them, but may convey meaning.  Carter-Ching, et al. suggested that “small tablet-armchair desks oriented toward the front of a classroom indicate expectations of focus on the instructor, little student-student discussion, and thin and flexible student bodies” (p. 11).  Other research has shown that location in the classroom is a variable of place and learning, in that where students sit in the room is a predictor of performance (Cornell, 2002;  Montello, 1988; Roxas, Carreon-Monterola & Monterola, 2009; Sommer, 1967).  Two more artifacts are inscriptions, which are written objects of knowledge and, texts as in printed books or digital screens.  Other artifacts are virtual artifacts, which are not usually found in traditional classrooms, but rather, in the realm of online and virtual instruction.  However, an example of a virtual artifact in the classroom would be one where  a teacher “referred back to the outline which had been on the blackboard earlier …; he walked over to the board, continued talking, and used his hands to point to various parts of the now-missing outline as if it were still displayed” (p. 14).  Lastly, ambient artifacts are the temperature, air quality, physical comfort, and lighting conditions in the room.  Careful examination of how these artifacts are used in the classroom during class time reveal the classroom environment’s support or hindrance to the pedagogical goals for the course, that is, whether they contribute to a social construction of knowledge, and so forth.  Thus, in a classroom, a sense of place is commonly comprised of the physical existence of the classroom, general and specific meanings attached to the space, formal components of the classroom (e.g., concrete conveyers, or concrete carriers) and their use, and the personal experiences of the user and his or her shared experiences with cohorts. 

                Due to the fact that this study focuses on the impact of physical environments on the educational experience of both teachers and students, it is important to consider how that educational experience (in particular, the sense of place) varies with course type.  There has been an emergence of online course offerings in higher education over the last several years (Long, 2014) in all manifestations.  “ ‘Hybrid’ or ‘blended’ instruction involves a combination of online and in-classroom instruction” (Pilati, 2011, p. 97).  The sense of place in online courses is defined differently from that of face-to-face instruction (Fontaine, 2002), yet it is important to consider when exploring the impact of the physical classroom during class time on the educational experience in a course not strictly taught in the traditional style (see Table 1 for description of course types).

Table 1.
Categorization of course type by online content.  Note.  From “Class differences: Online education in the United States,” by E. Allen, and J. Seaman, 2010, Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529952.pdf

            Online university education had its beginning in correspondence courses of the early 20^th century in which the main communication between teacher and student was by mail.  Distance education, as we know it today, originated in the early 1990s after development of the Internet Protocols for telecommunication, incorporation of the hypertext markup language rules for creating the “world-wide web,” and document transmission over the public Internet.  By 2002, over 1.5 million college students in the United States were taking courses asynchronously online.  Thus, “the mail-delivered correspondence course of yesterday had become the Web-delivered online course of today” (Perry & Pilati, 2011, p. 95).  Allen and Seaman (2010) define the continuum of course type from traditional coursework, which does not require Internet access, through greater levels of online involvement (such as requiring students to relate in asynchronous online discussions), to online instruction in which substantial content is provided on the Web and there no (or very few) classroom sessions (see Table 1).  The course delivery method, whether written, oral or online, determines the type of student-teacher and student-cohort interactions, and the degree of association with a shared physical classroom space. 
            Fontaine (2002) describes the importance of cultivating a strong sense of place in online learning education for greater student engagement, and therefore higher educational outcomes.  Allowing discussions of students’ and the instructor’s physical location will support an individual’s efforts to develop personal sense of place.  For students who “experience a greater sense of place...this sense may be just enough to keep them “switched on” to learning in the online environment long enough to “hang in there” and succeed” (Northcote, 2008, p. 677).

            However, Kupfer (2007) decries how online education can transform the sense of place to the detriment of the learning experience.  In a traditional classroom setting, all the participants are receiving delivery of the curriculum in the same place and at the same time.  In contrast, online instruction also allows for mobile reception of material and communication—literally:

People are moving in their cars, [and] so too are they moving through cyberspace.  This renders the actual location of the car still further irrelevant and unnoticed… We therefore lose not only a sense of place but also a sense of the importance of being placed…. Anywhere is nowhere. (pp. 39–40) 

While being in motion is still occupying space, albeit multiple spaces, Kupfer said the biggest deprivation is the loss of the importance of place and alternately, the shared experience of physically gathering.  In addition, the asynchronous nature of most online education offerings further distinguishes the sense of place experienced in the traditional classroom space from that of online learning. 

            Northcote (2008) describes the context of place in online education through a framework for developing place in distance education (see Figure 6 which illustrates this framework). 

Based upon this framework, place in online education consists of those locations, elements, meanings and processes that support the humanity of participants, relationships between teacher and student and within the student cohort, student engagement, teacher guidance, engaging interfaces, and an effective framework of instruction. 
            In hybrid or blended courses “the enhancement of face-to-face teaching with the use of CITs (communication and information technologies) represents a shift from campus-bound activities - enabling increased flexibility over when, where, what, how and with whom students learn” (Jamieson et al., 2000, p. 2).  Consequently, two places are important in that learning experience.  They are the classroom space consisting of its physicality, and individual

Figure 6.  Diagram illustrating a framework for creating a sense of place in online teaching environments.  From “Sense of place in online learning environments” by M. Northcote, 2008, December.  Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/northcote.pdf

perceptions of the room and cohort experiences; and the online space shaped by the online course structure with graphic tools, and student perceptions of their teacher, social relationships, personal contributions, and feelings of his or her humanity within the format.  The importance of each place is dependent upon the degree of “online-ness,” or rather, the portion of the course delivered on the web (Northcote, 2008; Salmon, 2004).  I posit that each sense of place should support, not undermine, the other.  For instance, a classroom laboratory that was inadequate in size and quantity of workstations, in which some students had to stand and share a computer terminal, might elicit student perceptions of the space as being dehumanizing, which, in turn, might influence those students’ feeling of humanity in the online interfaces of the course. 
            In summary, I explored place within the traditional classroom, online instruction, and hybrid/blended courses.  A contemporary movement, experience design, is poised to elevate the sense of place to be a primary factor in the design of the built learning environment.  Beck (2014) explains that typical building designs are conceived at the behest of owners for economic reasons – to encourage revenue and profit.  This design initiative focuses on enhancing the experience for the users of the space, much like “Hotels that are hotel-centered will not treat their guests as well as ones that are guest-centered” (Norman, 2014, p. 1).  A classroom that is designed around teaching and learning, and the elements involved in place-making, has the opportunity to heighten the educational experience, much like the owners of a popular coffee shop might design the space to heighten the coffee drinking experience, allowing patrons to see, hear, smell, taste and feel the coffee product.
            I began with research on place in the traditional classroom environment, and explored the idea of place in online education.  I have introduced the concept of experience design, as a contemporary design practice that may provide perspectives to improve educational spaces.  Now that I have established my concept of place for classrooms in the university setting, I will address the issue of evaluation of the physical classroom for effectiveness.