places and spaces: case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based learning...

Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

G Model

JSEE-489; No. of Pages 11

PLACES and SPACES: Case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary,place-based learning environments

David Bryan Zandvliet *

Institute for Environmental Learning, Simon Fraser University, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 5 June 2013

Received in revised form 27 August 2013

Accepted 4 September 2013

Keywords:

Educational evaluation

Psychosocial learning environments

Physical learning environments

Place-based education

Environmental education

Sustainability education

A B S T R A C T

The study of learning environments increasingly holds potential for post-secondary research. Disciplines

exploring the relationship between environment and learning include science education, environmental

psychology and architecture, and is emergent in fields such as environmental education. Learning

environment studies typically acknowledge and account for factors in the physical and social realm and

describe how these conditions influence the process and experience of learning. This research furthers

knowledge on student perceptions of their learning environment. In addition to developing new

evaluation instruments, the objective was also to design sustainability assessment tools that attend to

student perceptions of the physical and social aspects of informal and campus-based learning

environments. The study constitutes ‘proof of concept’ for future, participatory evaluation studies on

post-secondary programs.

Crown Copyright � 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / s t u ed u c

Introduction

For many, this study will provide an introduction to the study oflearning environments, a research paradigm that is widely held insome parts of Europe and Australasia, but has yet to become amainstream approach internationally. Studies conducted byeducational researchers on classroom learning environments(otherwise known as classroom climate or classroom ecology)have built on earlier work related to organizational climate and itsapplication in educational settings. Research on learning environ-ments can be described as both descriptive of classroom contextsand predictive of student learning. This research also asserts thatthe study of learning environments has a valuable role to play: inpre-service teacher training; professional development, theevaluation of new curricula or innovation and generally, as animportant field of inquiry in its own right – the description of avaluable psychological and social component of students’ educa-tional experience.

In his earliest work on human environments, Moos (1974,1979) suggested that interest in the physical and social aspects ofplanning human environmental systems such as towns, work-places or public institutions was steadily increasing in response tothe technological advances that often instigate the large-scalechanges and adaptations that are required in our society. He

* Tel.: +1 604 219 0362.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Please cite this article in press as: D.B. Zandvliet. PLACES and SPACElearning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation (2013), http

0191-491X/$ – see front matter . Crown Copyright � 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. A

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.011

suggests that these changes (then as now) require a socio-environmental model to conceptualize, assess, and address ourevolving perceptions of space (Moos, 1979).

A similar line of inquiry then developed around the study ofeducational environments. Adapting Moos’ ideas to educationalsettings, Walberg (1991) claimed that the evaluation of teaching isbased on structural and behavioral theories that require perceptualmeasures of what he terms the feel of the class. Walberg (1991)further noted that the analysis of behavioral complexes witheducational perceptions may eventually begin to characterizeimportant aspects of what he termed psycho-social and materiallearning environments.

To address this line of inquiry, this project aimed to answer thequestion ‘‘How do students perceive aspects of an ‘ideal’ learningenvironment within the context of a single institution of highereducation?’’ (and in particular in a Faculty of Education where theseperceptions might have an enhanced meaning). In addition toinvestigating this main question, our study completed fiveassociated sub-tasks, those of: conducting an analysis of existinglearning environment research in post-secondary environments,development and adaptation of available learning environmentassessment tools, pilot testing these physical or socio-environmen-tal assessment tools and inventories, developing mixed methodsand evaluation protocols that could assist in the description ofinformal teaching spaces, and finally, designing and developing aprototype for an educational sustainability assessment instrumentthat attends to aspects of both the physical and psycho-sociallearning environment as a ‘proof of concept’ for future research.

S: Case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.011

ll rights reserved.


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0191491X

http://dx.doi.org/www.elsevier.com/stueduc


D.B. Zandvliet / Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2013) xxx–xxx2

G Model


Important for this research, learning environment studiesseek to describe the educational context and to identifyempirical relationships among subject matter (curriculum),teaching practices, and environmental variables (Blocher, 1978;Fraser, 1998; Jamieson, 2003; Oblinger, 2006). As such, the studyof learning environments is an emerging field of academicinquiry and increasingly prevalent within elementary, second-ary, and post-secondary research. Disciplines exploring thisrelationship between the environment and learning includescience education, environmental psychology, campus ecology,architecture, as well as inter- or multi-disciplinary fields of studysuch as environmental or place-based forms of education(Banning, 1988; Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 1996; Kenney,Dumont, & Kenney, 2005).

Literature review

Learning environment research

From four decades of learning environment research, there isnow compelling evidence to suggest that the classroom environ-ment influences student outcomes such as attitudes, behaviors andcognition (McRobbie, Fisher, & Wong, 1998). The development oflearning environment theory may be traced back as early as the1930s to research conducted by Lewin (1936). Further contributorsto this inquiry included Henry Murray, Herbert Walberg, andRudolf Moos as reported by Fraser (1998). Lewin’s (1936) fieldtheory stipulated that human behavior has two potent determi-nants: the environment and its interaction with an individual’spersonal characteristics. This idea was unconventional at the time,as most theorists believed a person’s previous experience is whatinformed their future behavior. Lewin (1936) challenged thistheory with his assertion that a person’s environment alsoinfluences a person’s behavior. He illustrated this relationshipthrough the formula B = f(P,E) which relates that behavior is afunction of the person and the environment. Several decades later,Walberg and Moos began work on research programs that studiesthe psychosocial environment and were conceptually based on thetheories of Lewin.

Moos (1974, 1979) continued this line of inquiry and began itsapplication to the academic environment developing surveys andassessments that address students’ behavior in post-secondarysettings. Within primary and secondary education, Walberg (1991)began investigating how teaching is evaluated through thebehavioral and structural aspects of the class environment.Walberg’s work gave rise to an exploration of students’ perceptionsand how these are influenced by the context which learning occurs.The work of both Walberg and Moos launched the field of learningenvironment research and provided a conceptual foundation forwhat is being researched today (Fraser, 1998; Fraser, Tobin, &McRobbie, 2012).

All learning environment studies seek to describe theeducational context and to identify empirical relationshipsamong subject matter (curriculum), teaching practices, andenvironmental variables (Blocher, 1978; Fraser, 1998; Jamieson,2003; Oblinger, 2006) and over the last forty years learningenvironment research has grown considerably, including adiverse range of approaches that have been developed, testedand validated in a variety of educational settings and in differentcountries (Fraser, 1998). Disciplines exploring this relationshipbetween ‘environment’ and learning include science education,environmental psychology, campus ecology, architecture, andnow, interdisciplinary fields of study such as environmental orplace-based forms of education (Banning, 1988; Bell et al., 1996;Kenney et al., 2005; Zandvliet, 2007, 2012). During this timeresearch in learning environments has provided convincing


evidence that the quality of the classroom environment in schoolsis a significant determinant of student learning (McRobbie et al.,1998).

The campus as a learning environment

American environmentalist David Orr noted that, ‘‘the curricu-lum embedded in any building instructs as fully and as powerfullyas any course taught in it’’ (1999, p. 212). The built environment ofcampuses and schools therefore affects how we move throughspace, how we gather with peers, and how we feel in a space.Campus rooms and buildings have the potential to move beyondsupporting our daily needs; they can enhance educationalpedagogy in critical ways. In addition, school buildings have theability to support and foster occupants’ imaginations as well asoccupants’ connection to themselves, peers, to the largercommunity, and to the immediate natural environment (Alexan-der, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977; Upitis, 2004). The builtenvironment thereby can enhance or detract from our perceptionsof our natural surroundings or local contexts in the sameconceptual ways as the psychosocial environment we experience.

In the earliest research in this area, Astin (1975), Pascarella andTerenzini (1980, 1991), and Tinto (1987) centered their research onstudent behavior within the post-secondary campus to determinewhat academic, social, economical, and environmental factorssupported or impeded students’ success. As llustrated by Tinto’sModel of Institutional Departure (1987), they found that thecampus environment significantly participates in the social andacademic engagement of students leading to their increased ratesof completion (Astin, 1975; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella& Terenzini, 1980).

Strange and Banning (2001) further examined the influence ofdesign, arrangement, and orientation of space within the campusin Educating by Design. Space, as they describe it, is an informalcommunicator to students, staff, faculty, and visitors to a campus.Examined through several lenses including planning, utilization,proxemics, and wayfinding, space persuades behavior symbolical-ly and often silently. This symbiotic relationship between spaceand its occupants is central to creating a cohesive environment. Asthey describe:

The college campus is a classic behavior setting, composed of

essentially two parts: the human or social aspects of the setting and

the nonhuman component or physical aspects. For example, on the

college campus, as students, faculty, and staff interact, they do so in

a physical environment including many nonhuman components

such as pathways, parking lots, activity fields, statuary, artwork,

and buildings, presenting a myriad of designs that vary in size,

color, and arrangement. It is the transactional (or mutually

influential) relationship between the human and nonhuman

elements in the behavior setting that shapes behavior. (p. 19)

Oblinger’s (2006) work also contributed to a dialog onenvironment-behavior relationships in her book Learning Spaces.Compiling a series of case studies from the United States andCanada, this research revealed several parallels in the factors thatcreate productive learning spaces at different campuses and whatassessment and evaluation processes were used to determine thesocial, physical, and individual value of these. Temple (2007)identified that the greatest influences in the planning anddesigning of space appear to be instigated by new approachesto teaching and learning, in addition, to noted technologicaladvances and expanding community expectations. Given thecorrelation and influence that the environment can have onstudent behavior, further empirical research must delve into ‘howwe perceive informal and campus spaces’ and what influences uswithin these contexts.



D.B. Zandvliet / Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

G Model


‘Sustainable’ learning environments

Creating sustainable learning environments that fulfill theneeds of learners, meet administrative and faculty intent, andeducate campus members about the culture and identity of theirinstitution have become of increasing interest to educators. Such anotion is tentatively described here as a ‘‘sustainable’’ learningenvironment. This notion of sustainability is defined as bothfulfilling the internal needs of the learner and instructor as well asfulfilling the environmental and ecological concerns in designingand building, while also maintaining the physical infrastructure.Implementing learning environments that are specific to aninstitutional student demographic is challenging, in part, becausemany facilities departments often employ external contractors(who may be unfamiliar with the institution’s culture) to designand implement physical changes with minimal input fromdepartments regarding academic objectives, programming needs,and spatial requirements to support the students who will usethese spaces.

An example emphasizing this administrative and academicdisconnect with the overall campus learning environment is seenin the often sluggish response in universities implementingpolicies, practices, and curriculum that address sustainability ina variety of forms. Currently, institutions participate in the exerciseof determining their ecological footprint but fail to carry this ideaof sustainability further to the process of learning and the potentialenhancement of the physical context in which learning takes place.Alternatively, the practice of organizing interdisciplinary teams tolook at the emergence of environmental effects and affects acrossfields and to work more collaboratively in developing coursematerial that integrates disciplinary subject matter with theenvironment would be an approach to addressing the sustainabil-ity of knowledge.

Temple (2007) further suggested that the creativity neededto address our evolving learners and their environments hasbeen absent because a dialog on aspects of our physical campusenvironments has been focused on (and therefore limited to)space planning and utilization issues. Increased governmentalreporting on how the campus is used and the density in which itis used has driven this administrative emphasis on howinstitutions look at space. Managing our learning spacesrequires institutions to think of space, as not merely somethingbuilt, maintained, or filled, but as a series of dynamic andevolving factors that require systematic review and adaptationin order that they continue to serve their intended purpose orfunction (Stigall, 2007).

Place-based learning environments

The concept of place-based education has been an evolvingcurricular and instructional approach that over the years has alsobeen referred to as community-oriented schooling, ecologicaleducation, and bioregional education (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000).Place-based education’s approach is ‘‘designed to help studentslearn about the immediate surroundings by capitalizing on theirlived experiences’’ (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). The appeal andstrength of the place-based education approach is in itsadaptability to the learner’s context and its process of mendingthe ‘disconnect’ between an institution’s environment and thelearner (Smith & Williams, 1999).

Early work by Sobel (1993, 1999) initially described the conceptof place-based education, however in recent years the concept hasexpanded to include community contexts, eco-literacy (Orr, 1992,1994), experiential learning (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000), andcritical pedagogy. Place-based education does not have its owntheoretical tradition; rather it is an assimilation of theoriesbelonging to experiential learning, contextual learning, problem-based learning, constructivism, outdoor education, indigenous


education, environmental education, as well as others that share inemphasizing the value of learning from one’s own community.

There is an abundance of studies in the educational literature,describing the potentially positive effects of a place-basededucation (Basile, 2000; Corral-Verdugo & Frais-Armenta, 1996;Cummins & Snively, 2000; Kenney et al., 2005; Lieberman & Hoody,2000; Lord, 1999). These positive outcomes include schools andcommunities working in conjunction with one another to establishcurriculum goals and design strategies that improve studentachievement while increasing their interest in their community.Others include teachers reportedly experiencing greater profes-sional satisfaction and, community members reportedly beingmore connected with their surrounding school and students(Smith & Williams, 1999).

Place-based education programs (such as those under studyhere) are designed to motivate learners at all levels of ability tointeract with content (Basile, 2000; Cummins & Snively, 2000;Kenney et al., 2005; Lord, 1999) and supports Dewey’s belief thatlearner’s direct experiences are key. For example, students are notinterested in ideas about phenomena but rather are drawn to theactual phenomena (Smith & Williams, 1999).

Non-traditional fields of education, such as place-basededucation, have also experienced serious challenges to theintegration of these ideas into the mainstream educationalenvironment and curriculum. Most academic institutions operatewith/in a paradigm that emphasizes student achievement in theform of a letter grade or test scores. Defining learning as somethingthat is simply to be quantified (and not described) has resulted in aperceived lack of support on the part of many educators to exploreother factors that might contribute to student learning and success.Focusing solely on student achievement as an evaluation oflearning destroys ‘‘the human qualities that make education aworthwhile experience for students’’ (Fraser, 1998). Instead,student achievement is commonly assessed through test-takingand results in development of pedagogical tools aimed to improvestudent achievement through improved methods of memorizationwith little regard to the context in which the learning occurs(Fraser, 1998). Learning environment research offers a compellingcase that suggests that the classroom environment can influence orbe predictive of student outcomes such as attitudes, behaviors andlearning (Fraser et al., 2012).

Methodology

Assessment and methods of evaluation in learning environments

research

Establishing criteria that comprehensively assess or describelearning environments, their form and function, and their intendedoutcomes, would challenge institutions to work collaborativelyand focus on how the space within their environment reinforcestheir academic and institutional objectives (Hunley & Schaller,2006; Temple, 2007). Qualitative and quantitative approaches toassessing learning environments center on measuring studentinvolvement and engagement, learning outcomes, utilization ofspace, and individual-environment influences (Fraser, 1998;Hunley & Schaller, 2006; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Strange &Banning, 2001). Traditionally, surveys have been used in evaluat-ing the influences of the campus environment on studentperception and behavior (Hunley & Schaller, 2006; Michael &Boyer, 1965; Moos, 1979) because they are easy to administer andcan focus on a larger sample of participants (in this case post-secondary students).

The exchange between people and their surroundings is also asubjective and individual phenomenon and may also bedescribed through qualitative approach and analysis. Qualitative




G Model


methodologies, such as interviews and focus groups, also tend toprovide more specific and yield richer more detailed informationregarding how the environment impacts the perception andbehavior of students (Mayan, 2001; Neuman, 1997; Tinto, 2000).

Finally, as the individual-environment interaction is dynamicand personal, employing a mixed methodology offers investigatorsa numerical understanding of the frequency in which a space isused, in addition to providing the description of what mayreinforce or discourage learning within that space (Bennett &Benton, 2001; Douglas, 1998; Harrington & Lindy, 1998; Harring-ton & Schibik, 2003; Hunley & Schaller, 2006). For campus planninggroups, student recruiters, and enrolment management, it is thistype of data that guides, specifies, and prioritizes space planning bypresenting valuable user insight into how the space is utilized andwhat changes should be made to address student’s environmentalconcerns (Hunley & Schaller, 2006; Oblinger, 2006).

This study undertook a unique approach in coupling aninvestigation of students’ perceptions of both their psychosociallearning environment (through the adaptation of a previouslydeveloped questionnaire), and the physical environment (throughthe development of a new questionnaire) using a mixedmethodology approach with focus group sessions used to refineand qualify the constructs measured by both instruments.

Recruitment and selection of participants

Participants for this study were recruited in person as a purposivesample selected from a cohort within the teacher education programand from various other undergraduate and graduate course offeringsas part of the environmental education program offered by theFaculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. In total, 6 classes(N = 160 students) were surveyed using two survey instrumentsadapted or developed for use in this study in various contexts/locations and a subset of this number (N = 16) were selected forparticipation in the focus group discussions.

Focus groups, survey development and participant observations

A learning environment is fairly complex entity in that it is aspace that supports both actors and their activities resulting in aplace that encourages and allows for learning to occur. This caninvolve both psychosocial and physical dimensions. Participantobservations and focus groups are commonly used as a method ingaining deeper insight as to how these environments impactperceptions and behavior. For the purposes of this study, iterativefocus groups were organized that consisted of group discussions onissues related to both the physical and psychosocial learningenvironment where their programs were taking place. Thesediscussions lead to revisions to the previously developed PLACESquestionnaire (Zandvliet, 2007, 2012) that made it a more suitableinstrument for use in the post-secondary setting. Participants werealso given the opportunity to dynamically engage and freelyexpress opinions pertaining to the sustainability of learning in avariety of physical environments. These discussions assisted us inthe development of the perceptual constructs to be used in the newSPACES questionnaire (developed for this study), and to thespecific wording of many of the items used in this instrument. Inaddition, participant observations (as recorded in the focus groups)helped the researchers to triangulate other non-verbal indicatorsof the same characteristics of educational sustainability asdescribed in both the developed surveys.

Setting and sample

Students, instructors and community educators participating inthis study are described as both ‘engaged with community and


volunteer resources’ in classrooms, schools, communities andidentified as ‘implementing a place-based and curriculum.’ For thepurposes of this study, the focus was on beginning teachers (andtheir instructors) who were engaged with post-secondary envi-ronmental education courses as an integral part of a teachereducation program.

There were two phases to the research, a quantitative and aqualitative component (though primarily quantitative data arepresented in this paper). Each is interrelated in a participatoryresearch framework that developed and strengthened this mixedmethodology and gave researchers detailed information abouteach classroom setting (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2004;Gaventa, 1988). In summary, 160 students (from 6 post-secondaryenvironmental education courses) completed a preferred form ofboth the Place-based and Constructivist Environment Survey(PLACES) and the Structural Physical and Campus EnvironmentSurvey (SPACES) both forms either adapted or designed specificallyfor this study. Typically, when using a ‘preferred’ form of aninstrument, students were asked to report on the ideal aspects ofthe learning environment they would prefer in a given setting:responding to each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from one(strongly disagree) through three (neutral) to a maximum score offive (strongly agree). The following sections give further detailsabout the two quantitative instruments used in this study.

Place-based Learning and Constructivist Environment Survey

(PLACES)

As noted, learning environment studies acknowledge andaccount for both the physical and social realm in which learningoccurs (Fraser, 1998). These socio-environmental conditionsinfluence the process and experience of learning (Strange &Banning, 2001). It is believed that a learning environmentcharacterized by a constructivist theory of learning, place-based,direct in experience and environmental in ethos will engage thelearner-adding to the effectiveness of learning, instill criticalthinking and create local community connections that arguablygive rise to the type of person that is needed to participate in anincreasingly globalized society. In order to elicit and assessstudents’ perceptions of learning environments, the Place-basedLearning and Constructivist Environment Survey or PLACES(Zandvliet, 2007, 2012) was adapted for use in this study. Thisdecision was taken as the instrument has been trialed in severalcontexts at the K-12 level and was easily adapted for use in thisstudy. Within the PLACES questionnaire (Zandvliet, 2007, 2012),there are eight psychosocial constructs identified and measured,those of: (1) Curriculum Relevance/Integration; (2) Students’perceptions of Critical Voice; (3) Student Negotiation; (4) GroupCohesion; (5) Student Involvement; (6) Perceptions of SharedControl; (7) Open-Endedness; and (8) Degree of EnvironmentalInteraction. The use of the PLACES questionnaire further investi-gates the relationship between these eight constructs assessing thelearning environment and in addressing educational sustainabili-ty. A description of these 8 scales with sample items is provided inTable 1.

Structural, Physical and Campus Environment Survey (SPACES)

The Structural, Physical and Campus Environment Survey(SPACES) was developed specifically for use in this study. It aimsto measure or describe the structural, architectural, and ambientfeatures of the campus environment that are often overlookedwhen assessing the efficacy of a student learning space.Understanding students’ preferences of their learning environ-ment offers an institution insight as to how they can design andmodify space to accommodate the needs of their learners. Thissurvey measures five physical constructs important to learner’sperceptions, those of: the spatial environment, scale and esthetics,



Table 1Description and example of items for each scale in the PLACES instrument.

Scale Description Item

Relevance/Integration [R/I] Extent to which lessons are relevant and integrated with

environmental and community-based activities

Lessons are supported with field experiences

and other field-based activities

Critical Voice [CV] Extent to which students have a voice in the classroom procedures

or protocols

It’s all right for me to openly express my opinion

Student Negotiation [SN] Extent to which students can negotiate activities in their class Other students ask me to explain my ideas

Group Cohesiveness [GC] Extent to which the students know, help and are supportive of

one another

Members of this class help one another during

classroom activities

Student Involvement [SI] Extent to which students have attentive interest, participate in

discussions, perform additional work and enjoy class

I pay attention

Shared Control [SC] Extent to which the instructor gives control to the students with

regard to curriculum/activities

I help the instructor to decide which

activities I do

Open Endedness [OE] Extent to which the instructor gives students freedom to think and

plan their own learning

I am encouraged to think for myself

Environmental Interaction [EI] Extent to which students are engaged in field or community-based

experiences

Learning is very important for me during our

field trips

Table 3Scale mean, internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) and discriminant validity for

PLACES instrument.

Scale Mean Alpha reliability Discriminant

validity

Preferred form

Relevance/Integration 4.29 0.78 0.22

Critical Voice 4.52 0.76 0.15

Student Negotiation 4.27 0.71 0.25

Group Cohesiveness 4.47 0.81 0.27

Student Involvement 3.96 0.75 0.35

Shared Control 3.67 0.82 0.30

Open Endedness 4.31 0.76 0.32

Environmental Interaction 4.22 0.79 0.37

N = 160.

Table 4Scale mean and internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) for SPACES instrument.

Scale Mean Alpha reliability

Preferred form

Spatial Environment 4.46 0.70

Architectural Elements 4.39 0.72

Scale and Esthetics 4.51 0.68

Ambient Factors 4.57 0.81

Visual Environment 4.37 0.84

N = 160.


G Model


ambient factors, architectural elements, and the visual environ-ment. Spatial environment addresses the learner’s perceptions interms of how accommodating the space is for the needs of theirphysical body and the learning activities in which they areengaged. Scale and esthetics can be described as the accessibilityand attractiveness the space offers to the user. Ambient factorsmeasure the user’s perceptions of temperature, noise, scent, anddaylight presented in the space. Architectural elements are thoseaspects that pertain to the flow and layout of space. Finally, visualenvironment focuses predominantly on the availability andadaptability of the lighting provided in a setting. As institutionsundertake the planning and development of their learning spaces,data on students’ preferences and perceptions will contribute tothe dialog evolving on how to create sustainable learningenvironments. A description of the 5 scales in the SPACESinstrument with sample items is provided in Table 2.

Validation information for instruments

Details of the mean scores, reliability and validity statistics foreach scale in the PLACES instrument are presented in Table 3.Details of the mean scores, and reliability for each scale in theSPACES instrument are presented in Table 4. Principal componentsfactor analysis, followed by varimax rotation, confirmed a refinedstructure of the preferred forms of each instrument comprising 40items in 8 scales for PLACES and 25 items in 5 scales for SPACES (allitems have a loading of at least 0.30). To determine the degree towhich items in the same scale measure the same aspects ofstudents’ perceptions of the environment, a measure of internalconsistency, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient (Cronbach,1951) was used. For the scales in PLACES, the highest alphareliability of 0.82 for the scale of Shared Control, and the lowest of0.71 for the scale of Student Negotiation indicated that the

Table 2Description and example of items for each scale in the SPACES instrument.

Scale Description

Spatial Environment [SE] Extent to which spatial arrangements and dimen

learner preferences

Architectural Elements [AE] Extent to which architectural or building features

finishes) accommodate user preferences

Scale and esthetics [SA] Extent to which students find the learning enviro

Ambient Factors [AF] Extent to which the students are made physically

Visual Environment [VE] Extent to which students are comfortable with th


instrument developed is reliable for use (De Vellis, 1991). Similarlyfor scales in SPACES, the highest alpha reliability of .84 for theVisual Environment scale and the lowest of .68 for the scale andesthetics scale also indicated that the instrument is suitablyreliable for use. In addition, the eight PLACES scales alsodemonstrated good discriminant validity (as measured by meaninter-scale correlations of .15–.37). This finding demonstrated that

Item

sions would accommodate I can easily move around in the space

(e.g. window/doors/skylights, The space is well-constructed with

quality materials

nment to be esthetically pleasing The setting provides a sense of culture

through its decor, art, or through

natural elements

comfortable in the setting The temperature is comfortable

e nature/quality of the lighting The amount of light provided is

adequate for learning



Fig. 1. Mean preferred psychosocial learning environment – PLACES data aggregated from all courses (N = 160 students)


G Model


psycho-social constructs in the PLACES instrument measurediscrete (though overlapping) scales in the range of learningenvironments measured.

Results

Qualitative findings

Focus group discussions on the psychosocial learning environment

As noted, focus groups engaged in a discussion of issues relatedto the psychosocial learning environment of their educationalprograms and these discussions lead to revisions in item wordingfor the previously developed PLACES questionnaire (Zandvliet,2007, 2012) making it a more suitable instrument for use in thepost-secondary setting. However, these discussions also affirmedstudents’ perceptions that the general construct of a learningenvironment was an important concept for evaluating post-secondary education generally, and that certain constructs such as‘‘group cohesion’’ and ‘‘involvement’’ were viewed as important fortheir learning process. Below are selected focus group commentsthat are illustrative of the comments made by students regardingthe importance of the psychosocial learning environment:

When first entering the class, I thought the focus would primarily

be based on time management, and worksheets; I soon came to

realize that it takes much more [attention to the learning

environment] to be a successful instructor . . .

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

SE AE SA AF

Rating

Scale s

Fig. 2. Mean preferred physical learning environment – SPAC


This class values group cohesion, which [the instructor] demon-

strated through his [research] presented to us . . .

Being in a community is more involving – instead of doing things

individually . . . you feel included and safe, within a strong

community.

Community building is a key component to teaching effectively in a

classroom, and is interconnected to learning about classroom

management

Focus group discussions on the physical learning environment

Participants were also given the opportunity to engage andexpress opinions pertaining to the sustainability of learning in avariety of physical environments. These discussions assisted us inthe development of the perceptual constructs to be used in theSPACES questionnaire and to the specific wording of many of theitems used in this instrument. Comments such as the followingassisted the researchers in qualifying students belief in theimportance of the physical environment in support of theirlearning process:

It is good to be a room that is pretty and it would be nice to have

things up on the walls . . . I know that just might be a pipe dream . . .

VE

ES data aggregated from all courses (N = 160 students)



Fig. 3. Preferred-PLACES results from students in EDUC 454 (Education Building).


G Model


I think that being in a smaller space, having a smaller number of

people than your typical classroom–that would be nice . . .

The boardroom was awesome because there was natural light and

access to the other room for breakout meetings, So that was in a

practical way useful.

In the windowless cell, that was not positive . . . I react a little

stronger to spaces. So, there were definitely a couple of times I just

didn’t want to be there . . .

Quantitative findings

Mean survey scores across all courses (PLACES and SPACES)

A patterned representation of the grand means for each of thefinal scales in the PLACES and SPACES instruments are provided inFigs. 1 and 2. In the preferred psychosocial learning environment(as measured by the PLACES Instrument) students rated mostaspects described by the questionnaire highly (with scores rangingfrom 3.67 to 4.52 on a five point rating scale). The scale of Critical

Voice was rated highest indicating that overall, students prioritizedthe importance of feeling comfortable in the learning environmentin order to speak their mind and express themselves. The scale ofShared Control (for curriculum and classroom practices) wasassigned the lowest ranking by students inferring that studentsmay find this scale comparatively less familiar or important thanthe other scales.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

SE AE SA AF Rating

S

Fig. 4. Preferred-SPACES results from stude


If the scales in the preferred form of PLACES are ranked, the datacan be interpreted as students indicating that they prefer alearning environment that:

(1) is open to students to speak their mind/express themselves(Critical Voice)

(2) has a good group dynamic (Group Cohesiveness)(3) allows students the freedom to personalize their learning

(Open-Endedness)(4) selects its experiential learning settings specifically to reinforce

classroom based learning (Relevance and Integration)(5) provides opportunities for students to share and contrast

alternative views of the learning content with one another(Student Negotiation)

(6) incorporates field activities into the curriculum (Environmen-tal Interaction)

(7) allows students to actively participate in learning (StudentInvestigation)

(8) and lastly, allows students to share control, to some degree,with the teacher about what is to be learned (Shared Control)

In the preferred physical learning environment (as measured bythe SPACES Instrument) students rated all aspects described by thequestionnaire very highly (with scores ranging from 4.37 to 4.57 onthe five point rating scale). While there was only minor variabilityin scores across the different scales, the scale of Ambient Factors

was rated highest of all constructs on both questionnaires,indicating that overall, students prioritized the importance offeeling physically comfortable in the learning environment ahead

VE

cale sPrefe rred

nts in EDUC 454 (Education Building).



Fig. 5. Preferred Learning Environment of Summer Institute students (Urban Field Locations).

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

SE AE SA AF VERating

Scale sPrefe rred

Fig. 6. Preferred-SPACES results of Summer Institute students (Urban Field Locations)


G Model


of all other physical or social factors. The scale of Visual

Environment was assigned the marginally lowest ranking bystudents but this was not likely significant.

Mean scale scores by individual case study

Preliminary results for 4/6 classes included in the study arepresented as preliminary and descriptive case study results here.The case studies included for reporting are illustrative of the‘qualitative’ variability in the perceptions of students across studyclasses and physical locations in the study (although more detailedqualitative findings are reported elsewhere). Each case includes a

Fig. 7. Preferred Learning Environment from Tea


brief summary of the study context followed by two chartsdepicting the pattern of student responses on these questionnairesas students rated their preferences for their psychosocial andphysical learning environments in that setting. Notes and/orcommentary are also provided for each case description. Followingthis, some case-case comparisons are provided for discussionaround the future uses for the developed instruments.

Case one (EDUC 454 – Education Building)

In this campus-based course 28 students completed PLACESand SPACES and the results are summarized in Figs. 3 and 4. For the

cher Education Cohort (Education Building).



1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Scale sPreferred

Fig. 8. Preferred-SPACES results from Teacher Education Cohort (Education Building).


G Model


preferred learning environment the scale of Open-Endedness wasthe highest ranked indicating that students prioritize the freedomto personalize their learning. Similar to the overall results, the scaleof Shared Control was the lowest ranked though closely followedby Student Investigation inferring that students find these scalescomparatively less important than the other six scales. Similarly tothe overall scores, physical environmental measures were alsorated (evenly) as very important to their learning environment.

Case 2 (EDUC 452 – Urban Field Locations)

In this intensive field-based course 53 students completedPLACES and SPACES. The results are summarized in Figs. 5 and 6.In the preferred learning environment (similar to the overallresults) the scale of Critical Voice was ranked highest indicatingthat students prioritized speaking their mind and expressingthemselves. However, for this location this measure was closelyfollowed by the scale Open-Endedness. The scale of SharedControl remained the lowest rank inferring that students mayfind this scale comparatively less important than the otherscales. All physical dimensions as measured by the SPACESinstrument were evenly rated by students as important forlearning.

Case 3 (EDUC 401/402 – Education Building)

In this environmental education focused teacher educationmodule, 32 students completed the PLACES and SPACESinstruments. The results are summarized in Figs. 7 and 8.In the preferred learning environment the scale of Group

Fig. 9. Preferred Learning Environment of


Cohesion was the highest ranked indicating that studentsprioritized the importance on working well with theircolleagues over other social scales here. The scale of SharedControl was the lowest ranked by students, though the relatedscales of Student Negotiation and Student Investigation werealso ranked comparatively lower. This infers that studentsmay find these scales comparatively less important than theothers on the questionnaires. As with the overall results, thephysical dimensions as measured by the SPACES instrumentwere also rated (evenly) as being important to the learningenvironment.

Case 4 (EDUC 857 – campus and field-based locations)

In this intensive theory and field-based course, 15 graduatestudents completed the PLACES and SPACES instruments. Theresults are summarized in Figs. 9 and 10. In the preferredlearning environment the scale of Critical Voice was thehighest ranked indicating that students prioritized theimportance of feeling comfortable in the learning environ-ment to speak their mind and express themselves. The scale ofShared Control was the lowest ranked by students followedclosely by lower ratings on scale of Student Negotiationinferring that students may find these scales less importantthan the other scales. All physical dimensions as measured bythe SPACES instrument were rated as important, though thescale of Visual environment was ranked as somewhat lower inimportance to other physical scales for their learning in thiscontext.

EDUC 857 – cohort (on/off-campus).



1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


Scale sPreferred

Fig. 10. Preferred-SPACES results from EDUC 857 – cohort (on/off-campus).


G Model


Discussion and conclusions

The inclusion of case study summaries and qualitative data inthe previous sections demonstrates that the PLACES and SPACESinstruments describe important aspects of the learning environ-ment in a variety of physical and social contexts (e.g. producingunique qualitative typologies in the various contexts under study).Variable physical contexts in this administration of the surveysincluded environmental education classes conducted in campusbased settings but extended to courses offered in both campus-based and field-based locations. Varied social contexts in this studyincluded undergraduate courses but also cohort programs in pre-service teacher education and graduate programs. As such, thedeveloped questionnaires can be said to describe importantconstructs in the learning ecology at all levels. Following this,the administration of the PLACES and SPACES instruments alsodemonstrated (for all scales) that the validity and reliability of thedeveloped measures may prove to be suitable for use in a widerange of postsecondary environmental education programming.

This research is distinctive because it has developed andvalidated (through participatory and conventional researchmethods) two instruments for use in evaluating environmentaleducation programs (PLACES and SPACES). The research’s relatedinstrument development offers an important step into the study oflearning environments and for the description of place basedenvironmental education settings. The study also yields consider-able new insight into the different learning environmentsexperienced by students in post-secondary settings. In futurework, the research will seek to corroborate earlier findings at the K-12 level (Zandvliet, 2007, 2012) that students who perceive acloser fit between actual and preferred environments in postsec-ondary settings as measured by the PLACES and SPACES instru-ments may have a range of more positive educational outcomes.

In this participatory research design, the inclusion of a mix ofstudents, instructors and community educators helped to developand strengthen a mixed methodology that gave researchers muchdetailed information about their own classroom settings as eachinstructor implemented their own interpretation of place-basedand constructivist curriculum. The inclusion and description of thepsychosocial scales (in PLACES) and physical scales (in SPACES)demonstrated that for post-secondary education students, acombination of psycho-social and physical factors are perceivedas being important and perhaps instrumental for their learning.

The major contribution of the current study has been thevalidation of two distinctive questionnaires: the Place-based

Learning and Constructivist Environment Survey (PLACES) and theStructural, Physical and Campus Environment Survey (SPACES) foruse in assessing students’ perceptions of preferred learning


environments within the environmental education milieu. Quan-titative analysis confirmed the validity and reliability of thequestionnaire in a range of settings. Further, the combination offocus group and questionnaire results in this study argue for anecological view in the interpretation of learning environmentfactors: e.g. both pedagogy and environmental interaction worktogether to create positive learning environments for students.Finally, the reported reliability and validity data for the adminis-tration of the PLACES and SPACES instruments demonstrate theymay be used in a variety of settings and may assist efforts todevelop both action research agendas and contextually derivedevaluation strategies for use in both place-based and environmen-tal education contexts.

As a key strategy in recruiting other instructors to participate inthis study, the data and results in this study were drawnexclusively from a preferred version of learning environmentinstruments developed so, no assessment of actual learningenvironments experienced by students has yet occurred (alimitation in the interpretation of its results). However this studydoes constitute a ‘‘proof of concept’’ in that participating studentsdid rate the constructs in the questionnaires as important to theirlearning or not. This proof of concept could extend into futurestudies where student perceptions comparing preferred versusactual learning environments can be conducted (see McRobbieet al., 1998) possibly facilitating a program of iterative actionresearch on the pedagogical practices of post-secondary environ-mental educators.

Importantly, research on post-secondary learning environ-ments is still in its infancy. Thus, there is a need to continue similarresearch to what has been conducted here on a wider scaleincorporating both preferred (ideal) and actual forms of developedquestionnaires so that authentic, participatory education assess-ments can be conducted as to the appropriateness of the learningenvironment that students are provided in their post-secondarysettings. Data such as these on student perceptions of our owninstructional practices would provide a rich forum for actionresearch on what might constitute a sustainable educationalecology (e.g. a complex range of factors that relate to each otherand support the learning process in students).

This administration of the PLACES and SPACES questionnaires inmultiple and diverse contexts has shown that they measureimportant factors in the psychosocial and physical learningenvironment which may contribute to students’ learning. Finally,as a proof of concept the study has developed a theoreticalfoundation for what might be described as a ‘sustainable educationecology’ and this has been our distinct contribution to evaluationresearch and to the study of learning environments more generally.In future, on-going studies in this area will assist in determining




G Model


both the reliability and validity of the instruments developed andfurther, how a range of psychosocial/physical factors may associateto influence learning and attitudes in a range of post-secondary,environmental education settings.

References

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings,construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Banning, J. H. (1988). Ecological transitions. The Campus Ecologist, 6(4), 1–3.Basile, C. (2000). Environmental education as a catalyst for transfer of learning in young

children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 21–27.Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (1996). Environmental psychology (4th

ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.Bennett, M., & Benton, S. (2001). What are the buildings saying? A study of first-year

undergraduate students’ attributions about college campus architecture. NASPAJournal, 38(2), 159–177.

Blocher, D. H. (1978). Campus learning environment and the ecology of studentdevelopment. In J. Banning (Ed.), Campus ecology: A perspective for student affairs.Cincinnati, OH: NASPA Monograph.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Corral-Verdugo, V., & Frais-Armenta, M. (1996). Predictors of environmental criticalthinking: A study of Mexican children. The Journal of Environmental Education,27(4), 23–28.

Cronbach, D. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334.

Cummins, S., & Snively, G. (2000). The effect of instruction on children’s knowledge ofmarine ecology, attitudes toward the ocean, and stances toward marine resourceissues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 305–326.

De Vellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications Inc.

Douglas, K. B. (1998). Impressions: African American first-year students’ perceptions ofa predominantly white university. Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 416–431.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternativeapproaches and practical guidelines. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Twenty thousand hours: Editor’s introduction. Learning EnvironmentResearch, 4, 1–5.

Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Second international handbook ofscience education (pp. 1277–1289). New York: Springer.

Gaventa, J. (1988). Participatory research in North America. Convergence, 21(2/3), 19–27.

Harrington, C. E., & Lindy, I. (1998). The use of reflexive photography in the study of thefreshman year experience. Paper presented at the 1998 annual conference of theIndiana association for institutional research. (ERIC Document No. ED429473).

Harrington, C. E., & Schibik, T. J. (2003). Reflexive photography as an alternative methodfor the study of freshman year experience. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 23–40.

Hunley, S. A., & Schaller, M. (2006). Assessing learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.),Learning spaces (pp. 13.1–13.11). http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces.

Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces:A role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 119–133.

Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R., & Kenney, G. (2005). Mission and place. Westport: PraegerPublishers.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill BookCompany.

Lieberman, G., & Hoody, L. (2000). Developing leadership and community to support anEIC program in your school: A self-evaluation guide. ERIC database (ED449019).

Lord, T. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching inenvironmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22–28.


Mayan, M. J. (2001). An introduction to qualitative methods. Edmonton: Qual InstitutePress.

McRobbie, C. J., Fisher, D. J., & Wong, A. F. L. (1998). Personal and class forms ofclassroom environment instruments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), Interna-tional handbook of science education (pp. 581–594). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.

Michael, W. B., & Boyer, E. L. (1965). Campus environment. Review of EducationalResearch, 35(4), 264–276.

Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and classification of human environ-ments: An overview. In R. Moos & P. Inset (Eds.), Issues in social ecology. Palo Alto:National Press Books.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Neuman, W. L. (1997). Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Social Research Meth-

ods.Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp.

13.1–13.11). http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces.Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind. Washington, DC: Island Press.Orr, D. (1999). Architecture as pedagogy. In C. Kibert (Ed.), Reshaping the built envi-

ronment: Ecology, ethics and economics (pp. 212–218). Washington, DC: Island Press.Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing and

improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and volun-

tary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51(1),60–75.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings andinsights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, G. A., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weavingeducation, culture and the environment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Sobel, D. (1993). Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush housesin middle childhood. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

Sobel, D. (1999). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. GreatBarrington, MA: Orion Society.

Stigall, S. W. (2007). Recommendations to improve space projection models anduniversity space usage. New Directions for Institutional Research, 135, 29–36.

Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus environmentsthat work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Temple, P. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. TheHigher Education Academy, 1–79.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.Chicago: University Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2000). Looking at the university through different lenses. About Campus, 4(6),2–3.

Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity: An InternationalJournal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 19–38.

Walberg, H. J. (1991). Improving school science in advanced and developing countries.Review of Educational Research, 61, 25–69.

Woodhouse, J., & Knapp, C. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction. ERIC data-base (ED448012).

Zandvliet, D. (2007). Learning environments for environmental education. www.aare.e-du.au/07pap/zan07609.pdf.

Zandvliet, D. B. (2012). Development and validation of the Place-based Learning andConstructivist Environment Survey (PLACES). Learning Environment Research,15(1), 125–140.

David Zandvliet is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Simon FraserUniversity in Vancouver, Canada and the founding Director for the Institute forEnvironmental Learning. An experienced researcher, he has published articles inInternational journals and presented conference papers on six continents and in over15 countries. His career interests lie in the areas of science and environmentaleducation and learning environments. He has considerable experience in the provisionof teacher development and has conducted studies in both informal and school-basedlocations in Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Taiwan.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-491X(13)00047-3/sbref0005









































http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces


























http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces


































http://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/zan07609.pdf

http://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/zan07609.pdf





places and spaces: case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based learning...

Documents