This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
Can the physical environment of the college classroom serve as an aid in
achieving curriculum goals. If so, what are the processes that connect physical
features of the classroom to learning? How can these features and processes be
useful in aiding the college instructor to meet the specific goals of the
curriculum? The purpose of this article is to address these important questions
from a perspective that will enable the college instructors to use the physical
environment of their classrooms to assist them in creating a supportive learning
environment.
The Classroom Physical Environment: Conceptual Frameworks
What are the conceptual frameworks that can help tie the specific features
of the classroom physical environment to learning? There are three important
ones that should be reviewed in response to this question: (1) Classrooms as
behavioral settings, (2) Classroom proxemics, and (3) Classrooms as non-verbal
communications.
Classrooms as Behavioral Settings
Behavioral settings (Barker, 1968) are the social/ physical situations in
which human behavior occurs (Wicker, 1984). The classroom is a classic
behavioral setting. The classroom, as are all behavioral settings, is comprised of
two parts: (1) the human or social aspect, and (2) the nonhuman component or physical environment. For example, in the classroom you have both instructor and students interacting as the social component, but this behavior takes place in a physical environment with nonhuman components such as size, color, furniture arrangement, etc.
The human and nonhuman components of a behavior setting can support
each other or the two can be antagonistic. For example, it would be difficult to
form small group discussions in a classroom if all the chairs were bolted to the
floor. On the other hand, by having moveable chairs or cushions the physical
aspects of the classroom would be supportive of this desired instructional
behavior. When the physical and behavioral aspects of the setting fit compatibly
together a synomorphic relationship is said to exist (Wicker, 1984). Common
sense and our experience tells us that if you have the physical environment of the
classroom supporting the desired behavioral outcome, better outcomes will result
than if the physical environment works against the desired outcomes. From the
behavior setting point of view, classroom spaces and facilities do not merely
create a mood or atmosphere, they facilitate certain behaviors (Wicker, 1984).
An extremely important notion associated with the concept of behavioral settings
is manning theory (Wicker, 1984). The notion of manning theory refers to the filling of essential social positions within a behavioral setting. Both men and women, boys and girls can fill essential positions, so the concept is not intended to refer to males only. Settings can be undermanned, overmanned, or optimally manned.
Instructors are well aware of the manning phenomenon. One hundred and
fifty students in a traditional college classroom with a single instructor produces
an "overmanned" condition or too many persons occupying the position of student
and not enough persons occupying the position of instructor. Experience tells us a
more optimal manning level would work more effectively (despite the increase in
the "costper credit hour" index). On the other hand, if two students attempted to
put together a massive and complex campus wide learning experience, the setting
would be undermanned and would probably lead to frustration for the students
involved. Viewing the classroom as a behavioral setting along with manning
theory allows the linking ofthe various features of physical environment to the
processes of learning.
A related concept to manning theory is the carrying capacity of an
environment (Belt, Fisher, Baum, and Greene, 1990) or how much use can an
environment support. The translation of this concept to the college classroom is
straightforward in terms of classroom size and available equipment and tools. A
physically small classroom with few resources will not support or "carry" the
activities of a large introductory class. Instructors know that one television set for a class of 200 will not carry a class video experience. While the concept of
carrying capacity was developed to help understand human use and abuse of
natural resources, it can also serve as a way to view the relationship between the
human and physical aspects of the college classroom.
In summary, the concepts of behavior setting, manning theory, and
carrying capacity all underscore that the physical environment of the classroom is
not just related to ambiance, but directly related to support of the curriculum
goals of the class.
Classroom Proxemics
Proxemics is the study of the social implications of the use of physical
space. Hall (1966) provided the pioneering work on how humans use space in
their everyday world. Important to the understanding of proxemics is the concept
of spatial zones. Spatial zones refer to the distances that we tend to establish
between ourselves and others when we engage in social interaction. There are
four zones or distances: ( 1 ) Intimate (0 to 1.5 feet) used for intimate
relationships like comforting, (2) Personal (1.5 to 4 feet) used for everyday
conversations with friends, (3) Social (4 to 12 feet) used for impersonal and
business type conversations, and (4) Public (greater than 12 feet) used for formal
presentations to a group.
Bowers and Flinders (1990) point out the classroom applications. The
greater the distance between the instructor and the student (public distance) the
more likely the students will become passive and the instructor's conversation
will be viewed as a formal lecture. To support an upset student an instructor must
move up to at least the personal distance zone in order for the verbal support to be
enhanced by the social communication associated with the spatial zone. If an
instructor wants the attention of the entire class, then movement toward the
public distance zone would be helpful. If there are non-participating students,
then movement to a closer distance to them would increase the probability of
their involvement. The use of the social/psychological communication aspects of
physical space can aid the instructor in obtaining both classroom control and
curriculum outcomes.
Classrooms as Non-Verbal Communication
The physical environment of the classroom communicates non-verbally.
Rapoport (1982) points out that messages stemming from the physical
environment communicate non-verbally appropriate behavioral choices as well as
eliciting emotions. For example, the physical artifacts placed on a classroom door
can communicate a warm welcome or a more formal "not welcome" message
depending on its design. A large desk between the instructor and the students
communicates distance and formality. Chairs in a small circle communicates
social interaction is important. A chair outside the group communicates isolation
and non-involvement. Attention to the non-verbal messages ofthe physical
environment and its artifacts can aid the instructor in developing and maintaining
a supportive learning environment as well as to assist in the obtaining of
curriculum goals.
While few college instructors assume responsibility for bulletin boards in
and around their classrooms, the boards also serve as communication devices.
The boards often become adorned with posters, signs, and symbols that can
communicate important messages about the academic and classroom culture of
the campus. For example, what do the bulletin board messages communicate
about gender roles? Are only male figures involved in work outside the home?
Are there pictures of women in front of computers or are computer users always
men? What are the messages about ethnic minorities? What roles are given to
them in the posters and advertisements?
A related observation pertains to the materials posted on faculty doors.
Faculty post a myriad of items on their doors ranging from favorite cartoons to
recent job announcements. The collage of the postings often send messages
regarding the faculty members political beliefs, hobbies and interests, and sense
of humor. It is not uncommon for students to "check-out" the instructors door
prior to enrolling in that instructor's class section.
Keen observers also know that by taking into account all faculty door
"messages" of one department that many aspects of departmental climate can be
ascertained. The messages are communicated to students and can aid or deter the
student's learning experience.
Summary
The concepts of behavioral setting, proxemics, and non-verbal
communication allows for an understanding of how the physical environment of
the classroom can serve as an instructional aid. As instructors and students know,
today's college classrooms are often a dreadful place for learning. With greater
attention paid not only to the physical conditions of classrooms, but also to how
the physical environment of the classroom can help instructors, our campus
places of learning can be both more comfortable and effective.
Editors Note:
References mentioned in this article can be found on page 4: Resource
References: Physical Environments and Learning
The relationship between the place of learning and learning has been
noted in the literature by a variety of phrases, for example: "putting the
philosophy in the bricks" (Clarke, 1989); "the building teaches" (Chan, 1988); "a
complex instructional tool" (Stewart, 1989); "the building as an instructional tool"
(Rakestraw, 1979; "the building is a message" (Hathway, 1988); and "it talks to
children" (Anderson, 1971).
Is the relationship between the places of learning and learning based on
"romanticism" and "folk-lore" or is there research to support the importance ofthe
relationship. The Resource References section on page four of this newsletter
includes the references to the major reviews (Handler, 1960; Anderson, 1971;
Wienstein, 1979; PhyfePerkins, 1980; and McGuffey, 1983). In addition, major
biographies on the topic of the physical environment of the classroom are also
included (McDonnell & Becker, 1978; Moore, Lane & Lindberg, 1979). One of
the best single sources for this topic is the Weinstein and David (1987) book
titled Spaces for Children.
Anderson, P. (1971). The school as an organic teaching aid. In R. M. McClure
(Ed.). National society for the study of education yearbook, Part 1. The
curriculum: Retrospect & Prospect (pp. 271-306). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Barker, R.G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Bell, P., Fisher, J., Baum, A., & Greene, T. (1990). Environmental psychology.
Fort Worth, TX: Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Bowers, C. A. & Flinders, D.J. (1990). Responsive teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Clark, J. (1989) . Philosophy in brick. Inland Architect, Nov/Dec .,44-59.
Chan, T. (1988). The aesthetic environment and student learning. School
Business Affairs, 51(6), 9-12.
Hall, E. (1969). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Handler, B. (1960). Need research on the effects of buildings on behavior. New
Building Research Insitiute. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science,
National Research Council.
Hathaway, W. (1988). Educational facilities: Designing to enhance learning and
human performance Education Canada, 28(4), 28-35.
McDonnell, T. & Becker, F. (1978). Annotated bibliography on the effects of the physical environment upon education. Ecological theory of teaching. Far West
Lab. for Educational Research and Development. San Francisco: CA. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED 218-252)
McGuffey, C. (1983). Facilities. In H. Walbert (Ed.). Improving educational
standards and productivity, (pp. 237-283). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing
Corporation.
Moore, G., Lane, C. & Lindberg, L. (1978). Bibliography on children and the
physical environment. Miluawkee, WI: University of Wisconsin Center for
Architecture and Urban Planning Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 184-696).
Phyfe-Perkins, E. (1980). Children's behavior in preschool settings: A review of
research concerning the influence of the physical environment. In L. Katz (Ed.).,
Current topics in early childhood education, Vol. 3, Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Co.
Rakestraw, W. (1979). School building design: The building as an instructional
tool. CEFP Journal, 17(16). 7.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal
communications approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication Company
Stewart, G. (1989). Standards as insurers of quality. Educational Facility Planner, July-August, 4-5.
Wachs, T. (1987) . Developmental perspective on designing for development. In
C. Weinstein & T. David (Eds.). Spaces for children, (pp. 291-307).
Weinstein, C. & David, T. (Eds.)., Spaces for children. New York: Plenum Press.
Wicker, A.W. (1984). An introduction to ecological psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.