See
or
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 20th 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
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.
