A study on the Indices of Optimal Teaching and Learning Environment Relevant to the Humanities Courses at Universities and the Extent of Attention Paid to Them

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Candidate of Curriculum Studies in higher education, University of Isfahan, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Isfahan, Iran

2 (Corresponding Author): Professor, Department of Education, University of Isfahan, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of educational management and human resource development, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Aim: Higher education system is the most valuable resource for facilitating social progress and development and the teaching and learning environment is one of the most important determinants of an effective education system because any teaching and learning process takes place in a learning environment. The learning environment can be defined in terms of the physical, social, and psychological context in which learners learn and socialize. The present study is aimed at identifying indices of optimal teaching and learning environment relevant to the Humanities Courses at different universities and the extent to which these indices are paid attention to.
 
Method
Exploratory mixed-methods approach to research was used for conducting the present study. The qualitative phase was done through the use of case study method. Semi-structured interviews with 20 recognized and qualified university experts and faculty members with experience of teaching and learning and designing curriculum were conducted. Furthermore, 360 university students, selected using multistage cluster sampling method, took part in the quantitative phase of the study which was conducted through the use of descriptive survey method. In this phase, a questionnaire, developed based on the qualitative phase results, was distributed among participants. Concerning validity, face and content validity of the questionnaire was assessed and confirmed. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was also used to assess reliability of the developed questionnaire. Then, descriptive and inferential statistics were used for analyzing the obtained data. Concerning ethical issues, the needs to protect confidentiality of participants' personal information and to assure if they are willing to participate in the study were met in doing the present study.
 
Findings
Based on the obtained results, the nine identified indices for evaluation and revision of teaching and learning environments were selection of an educational location based on the course content, proportion of the learning environment to the number of students, suitability of the instructional environment in terms of temperature, light, ventilation and color, possibility of forming small groups in the environment, optimal distance of the environment from crowded places, simulation of the educational environment to the real environment of labor market, the use of favorable, pleasant, and stimulating instructional environment, appropriateness of the environment to the Islamic-Iranian culture, creation of a sense of belonging to the environment and ensuring security of students in the environment. The quantitative results also indicated that the level of attention paid to the indices of teaching and learning environments seem to be less than optimal.
 
Discussion and Conclusion
In consequence, it can be argued that the identified indices can be used to assess and revise the content of courses in different humanities majors. In order to promote the quality of the curriculums, then, particular attention needs to be paid to students and to the development of the content for university curriculum and educational planning based on students' perspectives and recommendations. Finally, the instructional environment should be learner-centered and follows the principles of social constructivism because learners can accelerate their learning process in a learning oriented and active environment. The overall results of this study also indicated that having knowledge of theoretical issues is not enough in today's complex world, but rather individuals must learn in an instructional environment which provides them with enough opportunities for practicing and experiencing. Therefore, experts believe that students should be present in labor market and be able to spend part of their time gaining experience. This will enable them to solve their professional problems after graduation and help them achieve their desired goals at the right time and based on their capabilities. Overall, a richer and more flexible instructional environment results in a better quality of education and a more successful learning process.

Keywords

References

Abell, M. M., Debra K. B. & Thomas J. S. (2005). Access to the general curriculum: Acurriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in school & clinic, 41 (2), 82–86.
Akker, J, V, D. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An Introduction: In J. van den Akker, U. Hameyer, & W. Kuiper (Eds.),Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Asiyai, R. (2014). Students’ perception of the condition of their classroom physical learning environment and its impact on their learning and motivation. Coll. Stud. J. 48, 716–726.
Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y. & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils' learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and environment, 89, 118-133.
Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Beauchamp, G. (1981). Curriculum theory (4th Ed.). Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M. & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, 17–66.
Bloom B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Bodin Danielsson, C. (2010). The office-an explorative study: Architectural design's impact on health, job satisfaction & well-being (Doctoral dissertation). University of Stockholm. Stockholm.
Brooman, S., Darwent, S. & Pimor, A. (2015). The student voice in higher education curriculum design: is there value in listening? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 663-674.
Bruno, S. & Munoz, G. (2010). Education and interactivism: Levels of interaction influencing learning processes. New ideas in psychology, 28(3), 365–379.
Cannon, R. & Kapelis, Z. (2006). Learning spaces for higher education. Programmed learning and educational technology, 13(2), 13-24.‏
Cheney, P. W. (2008). Constructivist learning environments: Students perceptions of a technology skills virtual internship [Dissertation]. University of Virginia.
Chism, N. V. N. & Bickford, D. (2002). The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, H. (2002). Building education: The role of the physical environment in enhancing teaching and research. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Cleveland, B. & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28.
Cohen, L., Chang, P., Pooley, J. A. & Pike, L. (2008). A holistic approach to establishing an effective learning environment for psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 7(1), 12-18.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publication Inc.
Creswell, W. (2011). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th ed). Boston: Pearson pub.
Danaifard, H., Alvani, S. M. & Azar, A. (2019). Methodology of Qualitative Research in Management: A Holistic Approach. Tehran: Eshraghi Publications. (Persian).
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education-A systematic literature review. Thinking skills and creativity, 8, 80 – 91.
Dehghani, M., Pakmehr, H. & Jafari Sani, H. (2011). Managerial of challenges curriculum implementation in higher education. Procedia social and behavioral sciences, (15), 2003-2005.
Dent, J. & Harden, R. M. (2013). A practical guide for medical teachers, London, Elsevier Health Sciences UK.
Dimmock, P. S. & Mair, R. J. (2008). Effect of building stiffness on tunnelling-induced ground movement. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 23(4), 438-450.
Eisner, E. W. (1994). Educational imagination. Macmillan Publishing Company.
European Students’ Union. (2015). Overview on student-centred learning in higher education in Europe: Research study. Retrieved from Brussels, Belgium: European Students’ Union.
Fisher, K. (2001). Building better outcomes: the impact of school infrastructure on student outcomes and behavior, Schooling Issues Digest.
Fraser, B. J. (1998) Classroom environment instruments: development, validity, and applications. Learning environments research, 1, 7-33.
Genn, J. M. (2001). Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education—a unifying perspective. Med. Teach 23, 337–344.
Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interview. London, Rautledge.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P. & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. London: The Design Council.
Hill, M. C. & Epps, K. K. (2010). The impact of physical classroom environment on student satisfaction and student evaluation of teaching in the university environment. Academy of educational leadership journal, 14(4), 65.‏
Jamaludin, N. M., Mahyuddin, N. & Akashah, F. W. (2016). Assessment of indoor environmental quality (IEQ): Students well-being in university classroom with the application of landscaping, MATEC web conf. EDP Sci. 6, 61.
Jordens, J. Z. & Zepke, N. (2009). A network approach to curriculum quality assessment. Quality in higher education, 15, (3), 279-289.
Karagiannopoulou, E. & Christodoulides, P. (2005). The impact of Greek university students’ perceptions of their learning environment on approaches to studying and academic outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Res. 43, 329–350.
Karimi, S. & Nasr, A. R. (2012). Interview data analysis methods. Research,7 (1), 71 – 94.
Keinänen, M., Ursin, J. & Nissinen, K. (2018). How to measure students’ innovation competences in higher education: Evaluation of an assessment tool in authentic learning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 30-36.
Klawonn, I. M. (2010). A building that suits the vision. In Mind your behaviour. How architecture shapes behavior. Copenhagen: 3XN, Dansk Architecture Center.
Klein, M. F. (1985). Curriculum design. International encyclopedia of education: curriculum studies. Volume II. Husen, T. and Postlethwaite editors, Pergamon Press: Oxford England, 1985, 1163-1170.
Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Lunnenberg, F. & Ernstein, A. (1996). Curriculum Development: Analysis and Improvement of Teaching (Translation of the Late Mostafa Sharif, 2011). ACECR, University of Isfahan. (Persian).
Malling, B., Mortensen, L. S., Scherpbier, A. J. & Ringsted, C. (2010). Educational climate seems unrelated to leadership skills of clinical consultants responsible of postgraduate medical education in clinical departments. BMC medical education, 10(1), 62.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
Mishra, P. & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 33(1), 6–19.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American journal of distance education, 3(2), 1–7.
Nasiri, F., Izadi Moez, S., Fallahi, A. H. & Shamkhani, T. (2011). Internalizing Islamic values among students from the viewpoint of educational educators (case study: high schools for girls in Hamadan). Journal of Cultural Engineering, 6(3), 74-85. (Persian).
Nazarpour, M. T. & Norouzian Maleki, S. (2018). Identifying effective architectural components in promoting students' learning with emphasis on open spaces of schools based on fundamental transformation document. Journal of Teaching and Learning Studies, 10 (2), 165 – 193. (Persian).
O’Brien, A., Chan, T. & Cho, M. (2008). Investigating nursing students’ perceptions of the changes in a nursing curriculum by means of a Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) inventory: results of a cluster analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh 5, 1–18.
Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Spaces as a change agent. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed)., Learning spaces (pp. 1.1–1.4). Retrieved january 1, 2010, from EDUCAUSE http://www. educause.edu/learningspaces.
Ostapczuk, M., Hugger, A., de Bruin, J., Ritz-Timme, S. & Rotthoff, T. (2012). DREEM on, dentists! Students’ perceptions of the educational environment in German dental school as measured by the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 16, 67–77.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Proshansky, H. M. & Fabian, A. K. (1987). The development of place identity in the child. In Spaces for children (pp. 21-40). Springer, Boston, MA.
Rezaei, H. & Bemani, N. (2016). The role of learning environment in promoting education and introducing learning environment measurement tools. Journal of Medical Education Development Center,7(1), 37-49. (Persian).
Robinson, K. (2010). Changing education paradigms. RSA Animate, The Royal society of Arts, London.
Rusticus, S. A., Wilson, D., Casiro, O. & Lovato, C. (2019). Evaluating the quality of health professions learning environments: development and validation of the health education learning environment survey (HELES). Evaluation & the health professions, 4, 1- 16.
Scott, T. & Brysiewicz, P. (2016). African emergency nursing curriculum: Development of a curriculum model. International emergency nursing, 27, 60-63.
Scott-Webber, L. (2004). In sync: Environmental behavior research and the design of learning spaces. Ann Arbor, MI: The society for college and university planning.
Scott‐Webber, L., Abraham, J. & Marini, M. (2000). Higher education classroom fail to meet needs of faculty and students. Journal of interior design, 26(2), 16-34.
Tanner, C. K. (2008). Explaining relationships among student outcomes and the school's physical environment. Journal of advanced academics, 19(3), 444-471.‏
Till, H. (2005). Climate studies: can students’ perceptions of the ideal educational environment be of use for institutional planning and resource utilization? Med. Teach, 27, 332–337.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of curriculum and instruction. The University of Chicago Press.
Uline, C. & Tschannen Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of educational administration, 46 (1), 55 – 74.
Veermans, K., Joolingen, W. V. & De Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International journal of science education, 28(4), 341-361.
Wang, M. T. & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational psychology review, 28 (2), 315-352.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Murphy, P. K. (2001). Teaching educational psychology to the implicit mind.‏
Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B. & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building and environment, 70, 171-188.‏
Yeoman, B. (2012). Special report: Rebuilding america’s schools. Parade magazine. retrieved from http://www. parade.com/news/2012/08/12-rebuilding-americas-schools.html.
Young, E. H. A., Green, L., Roehrich-Patrick, L. J. & Gibson, T. (2003). Do K-12 school facilities affect education outcomes? Nashville, TN: Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 June 2020
  • Revise Date: 11 August 2020
  • Accept Date: 18 August 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics