See
or
When remedial behaviors become unusually pronounced,
they may be an exceptional result of shortcomings in the environment and
provide a range of human expression (Abramson, 1992). The physicality of the classroom is often unnoticed
beyond the opening of a new facility. However, anecdotes persist of university
spaces that are unusual for their influence on teaching and learning, whether
liked or not.
Dutton and Grant (1991) advocate support of marginalized peoples and a politics of voice. They point out the benefit of this recognition by stating that “coming to voice, within relations of difference characterized by asymmetrical relations of power, should be an empowering process” (p. 40). To illustrate their theory, Dutton and Grant describe the design of the National Heritage Rooms at the University of Pittsburgh. They created these traditional rooms in an on-going effort to celebrate national heritage and ethnic diversity, and inspire cultural expression. Existing heritage rooms include Scottish, German, Swedish, Russian, Early American, Israeli, Armenian, African, and Ukrainian. They remark how the classrooms in general, successfully evoke a multicultural experience while providing an exchange of culture.
Dutton and Grant (1991) advocate support of marginalized peoples and a politics of voice. They point out the benefit of this recognition by stating that “coming to voice, within relations of difference characterized by asymmetrical relations of power, should be an empowering process” (p. 40). To illustrate their theory, Dutton and Grant describe the design of the National Heritage Rooms at the University of Pittsburgh. They created these traditional rooms in an on-going effort to celebrate national heritage and ethnic diversity, and inspire cultural expression. Existing heritage rooms include Scottish, German, Swedish, Russian, Early American, Israeli, Armenian, African, and Ukrainian. They remark how the classrooms in general, successfully evoke a multicultural experience while providing an exchange of culture.
Kroll (1984) describes conditions on
the University of Louvain campus in Belgium, where he accepted a commission to
design a facility to counter the uniform institutional feel of adjacent
buildings, and celebrate diversity. The
materials used in construction of the windows and their colors, curtains,
balconies, and plants increase the sense of diversity. “They reinforce the individuality and the
autonomy of the occupants and not the power of the central administration” (p. 167).
Christian Kuhn (2005) explores the success of Building 20, formerly standing on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This laboratory facility, designed in one afternoon by a graduate student and constructed in six months, was used for radiation research during World War II. Although it has been occupied for over 50 years, it was initially expected to be a temporary structure and, therefore, did not have to meet the normal cadre of building codes. Kuhn claimed that the building was one of the most prized on campus because of the unpretentiousness of it. The provisional character of the building allowed its inhabitants to create and re-create spaces and personally identify with the built environment.
Alternately,
Grannis (1994) points out another instance in which environmental-behavioral
research would have aided in the design of a particular higher educational
facility. His review of the Yale
University Arts and Architecture building in 1987 gave many examples of a
building not designed to fit the behavior of the inhabitants and how the
students retaliated by vandalizing, defecating, trashing and eventually trying
to burn down the facility.Christian Kuhn (2005) explores the success of Building 20, formerly standing on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This laboratory facility, designed in one afternoon by a graduate student and constructed in six months, was used for radiation research during World War II. Although it has been occupied for over 50 years, it was initially expected to be a temporary structure and, therefore, did not have to meet the normal cadre of building codes. Kuhn claimed that the building was one of the most prized on campus because of the unpretentiousness of it. The provisional character of the building allowed its inhabitants to create and re-create spaces and personally identify with the built environment.
There is much anecdotal and theoretical discussion of how the built environment supports effective teaching practices and student interactions, consisting of case studies of exemplary school environments (Architectural Record, 2008; Dittoe, 2002; Dutton & Grant, 1991; Kuhn, 2005; Van Note Chism, 2002), and unsettling stories of how inadequate spaces inhibit learning or promote behavior by students and teachers that is adverse, inefficient, or ineffective (Foucault, 1995; Freire, 1970; Hebdige, 1979; Piro, 2008). It is also a common assumption that students and teachers often act in some way to make up for the deficiencies in the built environment or use those shortcomings to enrich learning experiences (Burgan, 2006). However, there is no formal process currently utilized to analyze and consider the many obvious and subtle efforts made by teachers and students to correct deficiencies in the classroom built environment in support of their educational experience.
