Yükseköğretimde Fiziksel Çevrenin Örtük Programının İncelenmesi

Year 2023, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 704 - 731, 22.08.2023

Dürdane Tor , Cennet Engin Demir

https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1284795

Abstract

Bu gömülü kuram geliştirme çalışmasında, fiziksel çevrenin örtük programı incelenmiştir. Örtük program, bir eğitim ortamında ifade edilmemiş normları, değerleri ve fikirleri aktarır. Fiziksel çevre, örtük programla ilgili alanyazında incelenen bir konudur ve öğrenme sürecinin doğası ve öğretmenlerin ve öğrencilerin rolleri hakkında bilgi taşır. Bu doğrultuda bu çalışmanın amacı üniversite eğitiminde fiziki ortamın örtük programı olarak incelemektir. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, iki farklı veri toplama yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir: Yürüyerek görüşme ve fotoğraflı tanımlama. Türkiye'de Ankara ilindeki bir devlet üniversitesinde yedi farklı bağlamdan 93 lisans öğrencisi örnekleme dâhil edilmiştir. Nvivo nitel analiz programı kullanılarak veriler, gömülü teori çerçevesinde açık, eksenel ve seçici kodlama kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, fiziksel ortamın örtük program olarak üç temel boyutunu ortaya çıkarmıştır: (1) fiziksel ortamın öğrencilerin sosyalleşmeleri, duyguları ve binanın alan özgülüğüne ilişkin fikirleri üzerindeki etkisi; (2) üniversitenin bir sembolü olarak fiziksel çevrenin anlamı ve (3) fiziksel çevrenin, araştırmacıların geçmişlerine ve ideolojilere bağlı olan görünmez yönleri.

Keywords

Gömülü kuram oluşturma çalışması, örtük program, yükseköğretim, fiziksel ortam

Examining the Hidden Curriculum of the Physical Environment in Higher Education

Abstract

In this grounded theory study, the hidden curriculum of the physical environment is examined. Hidden curriculum conveys unstated norms, values, and ideas in an educational setting. The physical environment, which carries information about social order, the nature of the learning process, and the roles of teachers and students, is one area covered in literature on hidden curriculum. In this respect, the primary objective was to examine the physical environment as hidden curriculum in university education. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather data in two different ways: Walking interviews and photo-elicitation. 93 undergraduate students from seven different contexts were included in the sample at one public university in Ankara, Türkiye. Using the Nvivo qualitative analysis program, data were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding within the grounded theory framework. The study identified three key aspects of the physical environment as hidden curriculum: (1) the physical environment's impact on students' socialization, feelings, and ideas regarding field specificity of building; (2) meaning of the physical environment as a symbol of the university, and (3) the physical environment's invisible aspects, which depend on the researchers' backgrounds and ideologies.

Keywords

Grounded theory, hidden curriculum, higher education, physical environment

References

• Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in the age of supercomplexity. Open University Press.
• Bennett, S. (2007). First questions for designing higher education learning spaces. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.08.015.
• Berman, N. (2020). A critical examination of informal learning spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1670147
• Bickford, D.J., & Wright, D.J. (2006). Community: The hidden context for learning in learning spaces. In Learning Spaces. Edited by Diana G. Oblinger. Educause: Washington, D.C. pp 4.1- 4.22
• Bligh, B., & Elkington, S. (2019). Future learning spaces in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and contradictions of economic life. Basic Books.
• Boys, J. (2009). Beyond the beanbag? Towards new ways of thinking about learning spaces. Networks, 8.
• Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces: Re-thinking the architecture of post-compulsory education. Routledge.
• Böhm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In U. Flick, E. V. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 270–75). Sage Publications.
• Carpiano, R. M. (2009). Come take a walk with me: The “go-along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health and Place, 15(1), 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.003.
• Castells, M. (1977). The urban question: A Marxist approach. MIT Press.
• Chapman, M. (2006). American places: In search of the twenty-first century campus. American Council on Education/Praeger.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
• Charmaz, K. (2020). Grounded theory: Main characteristics. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer, (Eds.). Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp.195-222). Sage.
• Clarke, M., Hyde, A., & Drennan, J. (2013). Professional identity in higher education. In The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 7-21). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4614-5_2.
• Conlon C, Timonen V, Elliott-O’Dare C, O’Keeffe S, Foley G. (2020). Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research, 30(6), 947-959. https://doi:10.1177/1049732319899139.
• Corbin, J., & Holt, N. (2004). Grounded theory. In C. Lewin & B. Somekh (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 49-55). Sage Publications.
• Costello, C. Y. (2001). Schooled by the classroom: The (re)production of social stratification in professional school settings. In E. Margolis (Ed.), The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp. 43-60). Routledge.
• Cox, A. M. (2011). Students’ experience of university space: An exploratory study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 197-207.
• Cox, A. M. (2018). Space and embodiment in informal learning. Higher Education, 75(6), 1077-1090. https://doi:10.1007/ s10734-017-01861.
• Crow, G. M. (2006). Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: Perspectives on socialization. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 310-325. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610674930.
• Demir, C. E. (2003, September). The hidden curriculum of the physical environment in Turkish and American middle schools. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Hamburg.
• Demir, C. E., & Paykoç, F. (2006). Challenges of primary education in Turkey: Priorities of parents and professionals. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(6), 640-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.03.002.
• Dreeben, R. (1967). The contribution of schooling to the learning of norms. Harward Educational Review, 37(2), 211-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.37.2.e6v4554265l57836.
• Edwards, B. (2000). University architecture. Spon Press.
• Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Globalisation & pedagogy: Space, place and identity. Routledge.
• Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2), 149–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3056.
• Engin-Demir, C. (2003, September). The hidden curriculum of the physical environment in Turkish and American middle schools. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Hamburg, Germany.
• Furtwengler, W. J., & Micich, A. (1991). Seeing what we think: Symbols of school culture. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
• Gair, M., & Mullins, G. (2001). Hiding in plain sight. In E. Margolis (Ed.), The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp.21-41). Routledge.
• Getzels, J. W. (1974). Images of the classroom and visions of the learner. The School Review, 82(4), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1086/443148.
• Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Allyn and Bacon.
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Pub. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014.
• Gordon, D. (1982). The concept of the hidden curriculum. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 16(2), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1982.tb00611.x.
• Göregenli, M. (2015). Çevre psikolojisi [Environment psychology]. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Graetz, K. A., & Goliber, M. J. (2002). Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations and new Frontiers. In N.V.N. Chism & J. Deborah (Eds.), The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments: New directions in teaching and learning (92, pp.13-22). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.75.
• Gross, M., & Hochberg, N. (2016). Characteristics of place identity as part of professional identity development among pre-service teachers. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 1243-1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9646-4.
• Gunio, M. J. D., & Fajardo, A. C. (2018). Evaluating the hidden curriculum and its ımpact on the character development of preschool students. Asia Pacific Journal on Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.46303/apjcs.2018.4.
• Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0185.
• Hammond, J. D. (1998). Photography and the “natives”: Examining the hidden curriculum of photographs in introductory anthropology texts. Visual Studies, 13(2), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725869808583794.
• Harrop, D., & Turpin, B. (2013). A study exploring learners’ informal learning space behaviours, attitudes and preferences. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.740961.
• Hillier B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237.
• Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2010). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(3), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200490437949.
• Ingold, T., & Lee, J. (2008). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Ashgate.
• Ipser, C., Radinger, G., Brachtl, S., Keser Aschenberger, F., Schreder, G., Hynek, N., & Zenk, L. (2021). Experiencing learning spaces in continuing education: The learner’s perspective. European Journal of University Lifelong Learning, 5(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.53807/0501lcuf.
• Jachim, N., & Posner, J. (1987, Spring). The hidden curriculum. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 44(1), 83-85.
• Jackson, J. B. (1984). Discovering the vernacular landscape. Yale University Press.
• Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000277991.
• Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2011). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: A tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 189–201. https://doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270.
• Jessop, T., & Smith, A. (2008, July). Spaces, pedagogy, and power: A case study. Paper presented at the HEA Annual Conference, Harrogate.
• Joint Information Systems Committee. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf last accessed 02/04/12
• Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R., & Kenney, G. (2005). Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design. Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Kerby, A. (1991). Narrative and the self. Indiana University Press.
• Kogan, M. (2000). Higher education communities and academic identity. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00156.
• Lamote, C., & Engels, N. (2010). The development of student teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760903457735.
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space translated. Blackwell.
• Loughlin, C., & Lindberg-Sand, Å. (2022). The use of lectures: Fffective pedagogy or seeds scattered on the wind? Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00833-9.
• Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_1. Margolis, E. (2001). The hidden curriculum in higher education. Routledge.
• Martin, J. R. (1994). What should we do with a hidden curriculum when we find one? In J. R. Martin (Eds.), Changing the educational landscape: Philosophy, women, and curriculum (pp. 154-169). Routledge.
• McKinney, K., Saxe, D., & Cobb, L. (1998). Are we really doing all we can for our undergraduates? Professional socialization via out-of-class experiences. Teaching Sociology, 26(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318675.
• Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/past/display_past.asp?pID=spring02&sID=monahan.
• Moore, G. T. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care center. In C. S. Weinstein, & T. G. David (Eds), Spaces for children: the built environment and child development (pp. 41-72). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5227-3_3.
• Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp.12-15). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces.
• Popenici, S., & Brew, A. (2013). Reading walls on university corridors: Transitional learning spaces in campus. In M. Vicars & T. McKenna (Eds.), Discourse, power, and resistance (pp. 145- 156). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-509-0_14.
• Portelli, J. (1993). Exposing the hidden curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(4), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027930250404.
• Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual studies, 22(1), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860601167143.
• Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
• Rivlin, L. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1984). Educational issues, school settings, and environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(4), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80005-5.
• Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. Wiley.
• Seddon, T. (1983). The hidden curriculum: An overview. Curriculum Perspectives, 3(1), 1-6.
• Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.
• Sommer, R., & Becker, F. (1974). Learning outside the classroom. The School Review, 82(4), 601-607. https://doi.org/10.1086/443154.
• Stolp, S., & Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values, and the leader’s role. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
• Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Education by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. Jossey-Bass.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
• Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020.
• Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under‐researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229‐241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489363.
• Tomlinson, M., & Jackson, D. (2021). Professional identity formation in contemporary higher education students. Studies in Higher Education, 46(4), 885-900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1659763.
• Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research 5 (pp. 289-322). Agathon.
• Whisnant, D. E. (1971). The university as a space and the future of the university. The Journal of Higher Education, 42(2), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/1980696.
• Vallance, E. (1974). Hiding the hidden curriculum: An interpretation of the language of justification in nineteenth-century educational reform. Curriculum Theory Network, 4(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179123.
• Van Note Chism, N., & Bickford, D. J. (2002). Improving the environment for learning: An expanded agenda. In N. Van Note Chism & D. J. Bickford, (Eds.). Special issue: The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 92 (pp. 91-97). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.83.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimsek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yu, J., Vermunt, J. D., & Burke, C. (2021). Students’ learning patterns and learning spaces in higher education: An empirical investigation in China. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), 868-883. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1775557.