Higher Education Classroom Fail to Meet Needs of Faculty and Students

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine differences between faculty and student opinions about university classrooms when the User's Environmental Interaction Framework (UEIF) model's quadrants were considered together, (2) to determine the positive, negative, and different effects between these populations within each UEIF quadrant, and (3) to determine faculty and student use. RESEARCH DESIGN: The User's Environmental Framework (UEIF) guided the research at a large university. This framework has four quadrants: environmental/value dimensions, and behavioral/internal responses, prox‐emics concepts, and interactional influences. The study had two parts: (1) a 48‐question questionnaire, and (2) behavioral observations surveying both faculty and students (120 subjects) who used 15 general purpose classrooms. ANALYSIS: Stepwise Discriminant Analysis determined which subset of questions best separates student from faculty responses. Canonical Discriminant Analysis further explained relationships. KEY FINDINGS: Return rate was 67% and four observations of each classroom were conducted. Faculty and students agreed on the majority of the items. Subjects felt lighting, air quality, maintenance, equipment, and general comfort were adequate. There was a lack of commitment to the classrooms and subjects had little desire to stay in these rooms. Faculty and students disagreed on 10 questions. Faculty felt the classrooms did not convey a positive experience relating to noise control, seating flexibility, and lacked provision for social interaction. Students found signage inadequate and felt classrooms were uninspiring, nonanticipatory, and lacking symbolic meaning. Behavioral observations supported these concerns. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that general purpose classrooms on this campus do not meet all needs of faculty or students. Problem areas can be addressed through thoughtful knowledge‐based interior design solutions. “I have to use a lecture format because I can't change the seating around to include group discussion.” “I have to send students out into the hallway if I want to utilize a team approach in my teaching, because the seating is fixed.” “I have to move the furniture at the front of the room out of my way as it looks like a used furniture store.” “Technology is not integrated, nor easily accessible. It is provided ad hoc, and looks it.”

Spatial User Experience: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing Physical Settings

“…From the field of Interior Design, Scott‐Webber, Abraham, and Marini (2000) provide interesting insights. They developed a study based on the User's Environmental Interaction Framework to analyze the fit among faculty, students, and the classroom (Scott‐Webber, 1997).…”

A Space for Learning: A review of research on active learning spaces

“…While these ALC implementations were taking place in higher education, parallel investigations done by architects and designers were producing evidence against traditional lecture-focused learning spaces. One of the most prominent of these studies (Scott-Webber, Abraham, & Marini, 2000), simply titled "Higher Education Classrooms Fail to Meet Needs of Faculty and Students", used a design based on the concept of proxemics (Hall, 1959) to conduct a qualitative study of faculty and students' responses to traditional classrooms. The study found that key elements of the physical environment such as seating and noise control interfered with active learning and suppressed social activity and affective responses.…”

Wayfinding Systems in Educational Environments

“…Specifically, locating classrooms was cited as the most difficult task. Students are most likely to complain about wayfinding for classrooms because they desire wayfinding be easy and efficient to avoid anxiety [15].…”