Structures That Teach
Structures That Teach
Structures That Teach
ABSTRACT
Everything within the learning setting holds the potential for learning and teaching.
A significant, often overlooked source for accessing new information lies in the learner’s
knowledge and use of cultural values, habits and norms. In addition to listening and
reading texts, learning takes place through daily interaction with building and
communication structures. These structures are representations of cultural values that
are read by all who inhabit learning settings. They are structures that teach. The
messages of these structures remain with students long after they leave learning settings.
Like language, knowledge of culture serves as an everyday and ever-ready resource for
information about how to gather and share knowledge and ideas about how learning
proceeds. This article describes the value of documenting some of the environmental
messages of these structures using a semiotic interpretive research approach. Semiotics
explores the signs and systems of signification that are used to engage learners.
Messages are organized and expanded using four main categories: 1) Architectural
Messages; 2) Text and Curriculum Messages; 3) Social/Behavioral Messages and 4)
Policy Messages. The study suggests that a semiotic consideration of learning settings
allows identification and critique of ineffective environmental messages and suggests the
creation of messages that will lead to more effective knowledge, habits and routines.
INTRODUCTION
As Cunningham (2002) notes, “The school environment can have a dramatic effect
on the educational process; however, this reality often is overlooked” (p. 1). Recent
attempts to make better use of buildings as learning tools have seen the incorporation of
educational concepts into institutional building design, structures and outdoor spaces. In
this way, buildings become learning tools (Bingler, 1995). Taylor (2003) calls this seeing
buildings as “three-dimensional textbooks,” where “built and natural environments reveal
the ideas, laws and principles which we presently are trying to teach children from
textbooks” (p.1). In the Alberta Energy program, Energy Sleuth, for example, students
examine energy education principles using the material structures of the physical learning
setting to understand and develop the concepts, energy and heat (Shapiro-Zimnicki,
1989). With this knowledge, students then become energy loss activists. They track down
heat loss and energy waste in learning environments and share their findings with fellow
students and teachers. Buildings might be used in a unit on the topic, sound through
featuring the sound barrier qualities of walls in the study of acoustical principles. Or
students may examine the interrelationships between plants and animals by investigating
schoolyard ecology. In these examples, the physical features of learning environments
function as a form of curriculum text to build and enhance concepts, skills and attitudes.
The term text used in this way refers not to the printed pages of a book, but to potential
readings of the interwoven sets of messages that are read as cultural rules about how
communication and learning will proceed. A building’s architectural design, its physical
structures, and the activities within the learning setting are also representations of cultural
and social features that constitute other kinds of structures that teach. These structures
embody values that reflect the goals, ideals and aspirations of the culture that provide
rules for the design of the learning setting. They are also read as text forms by all who
inhabit and visit learning communities, primarily administrators, teachers, parents and
students.
CULTURAL/SOCIAL STRUCTURES THAT TEACH
Everything within the learning setting holds the potential for learning and teaching.
A significant, often overlooked, resource is the ordinary, everyday experience of
interacting with the building and communication structures available in learning settings.
These structures offer representations of cultural values that remain with students long
after their learning experiences. As with language, knowledge of one’s culture serves as
an everyday and ever ready resource for ideas and actions. We employ this knowledge
daily as we learn from and communicate with one another. When educators begin to view
everyday cultural practices as learning resources, they can engage in critical reflection
on the ideas and messages they convey. In Danesi's (1994) view, the everyday factual
world is one that we inherit because we all possess a body and a perceptual system, in
other words, the equipment needed to process everyday culture. He writes that the
artifactual world is not inherited, “but is transmitted in some culturally-specific context and
form that is regarded as communal knowledge. This world undergirds commonsense”
(p.14). Williams (2000) refers to this everyday knowledge as “ordinary culture.”
Ordinary culture has two aspects, the known meanings and directions which its
members are trained to; the new observations and meanings which are offered and
tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we
see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative;
that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings. (p.
33)
Learning environments are appropriate settings for identifying structures that
convey the messages of “ordinary culture” and “communal knowledge.” These structures
are read as texts that teach ways of valuing the environment and sustainable practices.
This article examines the potential of semiotics to uncover features of some of the
everyday cultural and social communication structures that speak messages about the
environment and the development of sustainable habits and practices. A semiotic
interpretive approach allows us to critique the ways cultural structures help teach
environmental ideas and values. Deepening understanding of the nature of these
structures can make a valuable contribution in the design of teacher education and
professional development programs.
Semiotics uses the term sign to mean a cultural unit. In the semiotic view, the sign
is regarded as the smallest unit of meaning, and refers to something that stands for
something else. For example, as a sign, the color green in certain cultural settings is a
sign that it is all right to go forward. In western culture, to “be green” indicates an attempt
to be ecologically aware or environmentally conscious. Waving one’s hand in one context
means goodbye, in another, it is an indication of a desire to speak. A key insight of
semiotics is that signs, sign systems and their meanings involve the constant correlation
of content and expression through everyday communication. A semiotic analysis of a
learning setting focuses on signs as they exist within communication processes as
structures that teach in learning settings rather than a sole focus on individual linguistic
forms. Although semiotics has been largely uninterpreted for educational practice, there
have been a few studies that consider sign and signification systems in educational
settings (Ball, 1990; Berbekar, 1989; Bernstein, 1972; Bowers, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991;
Golder & Gerber, 1990; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990; McLaren, 1986; Siegel,
1989).
Cultural views and values are embodied in the physical structures of buildings
designed for learning and they are also present in the “unwritten rules” of classroom
communication and behavior. Lemke (1990) suggests that cultural views and values are
available for study in two ways: 1) through activity structures that portray sequences of
actions and expected behavior in learning settings, and 2) through an examination of the
functions of these patterns of actions (p. 49).
Linnea: So we are planning our trip to Cougar Lakes to work with our Stream
Ecology lab unit next week. How many do not yet have in their permission
form?
[Several students raise their hands]
Linnea: Lee?
Marc: Well, I think we talked about it being important to all kinds of life in the
stream and to photosynthesis.
Linnea: All right, you have two ideas here. Life in the stream and photo-
synthesis. Let’s start with life in the stream. Who will track, or outline what
this is all about.
Anoo: Well, the leaves and some insects and probably some materials from,
um birds lands in the stream. I guess any pollution that might be in the area
also, like chemicals and such… The leaves and materials decay. They
produce things, like materials, that the animals living in the stream need,
like fish and some of the other insects there… well also frogs and any
salamanders that might live there too.
Linnea: Good, good. Well done, well said. And so what do we call these
materials that you say are produced?
Linnea: Try to speak a little louder, please. He said leaf litter. Well, yes.
But at a finer level, we want to refer to these materials, the ones that are
useful as nutrients. They are substances that are both biotic, parts of
organisms and abiotic. So what happens with these nutrients, well first of
all, what are the names of some of these nutrients?
Dawn: Carbon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, I guess, and we said some sugars.
Linnea: And what happens with these nutrients that are being dispersed in
the stream from the leaf litter and other materials?
Marc?
Marc: The plants that are in the water use them for photosynthesis, and
most are recycled.
Linnea: You got it. Cycling and recycling. Nutrient recycling. And that is what
we are going to get a chance to test for and see next week.
Viewed semiotically, we can see a pattern of communication and interaction here
that acts as a sign or form of text for students, a structure that teaches about the concepts
being learned. The structure teaches also about how learning discourse proceeds in the
learning setting and what the rules are – who will speak and when, who will ask the
questions, and who will provide the answers. A general pattern structure, typically offered
as good teaching procedure is analyzed adapting a framework described by Lemke
(1990, p. 52) and elaborated in this example as the following:
While this patterned interaction shows students what to expect in the classroom, it
is the teacher who holds power and control in the setting. As a ritual of interaction, a
critical analysis of this culturally created structure may at times reveal messages that we
do not want students to embrace and which we may wish to disrupt. While content
knowledge is reinforced, and this is the function and purpose of the lesson, students may
in fact be learning that they do not have significant ideas of their own to contribute. In this
lesson structure, learners do not learn to conceptualize questions of their own. These
messages may be disrupted when new or different activity structures are employed. New
messages about how learning will proceed become available as text, for example, when
learners are guided to design problem questions based on personal research interests or
observations or in guided inquiry. When learners engage in their own research, or in
projects that involve them in action to improve the environment, lesson activity structure
speaks a different message about the way that learning proceeds in environmental
learning settings.
In the semiotic study of science learning (Shapiro, 1996; Shapiro & Kirby, 1998),
a taxonomy of the nature and types of message features was developed to document the
types and nature of some of the messages of science in science learning and teaching.
Semiotic analyses of features of learning settings have been shared with practicing
teachers and student teachers to help them consider the ways that the ways we use
language, signs and sign systems speak a message about how our culture view and
values science and scientific knowledge. Discussions with teachers lead to
considerations of how these features of everyday cultural knowledge might be used more
explicitly as messages to build learner understandings. The research has inspired
semiotic investigations to consider the ways learning settings speak messages about use
and care of the environment. We have undertaken a systematic study to observe and
document the messages of science learning settings. The primary categories used in that
work have been used to examine, consider and organize some of the messages and
activity structures when considering the environmental messages of learning (Shapiro &
Kirby, 1998, pp. 230-231). These are:
• Architectural Messages
• Text and Curriculum Messages
• Social/Behavioral Messages
• Policy Messages
A wide range of formal and informal learning settings have been visited to observe
and document the environmental messages of learning settings. Graduate students,
practicing teachers and student teachers have helped gather observational and digital
data and have engaged in discussions relating to observations and documentation. These
discussions have allowed us to begin to expand the primary categories to consider the
environmental messages presented and read in learning settings. Currently in use as a
resource for conversation, these categories are used to engage practicing educators and
student teachers in discussions about the nature and types of environmental messages
in learning settings.
ARCHITECTURAL MESSAGES
Reading the School Building
The physical setting of the building/placement in the community
Entrances to the building(s)
Architectural features – artistic/purposeful
Structure of the building/organization of rooms and furniture within the setting
Existence of designated spaces for environmental learning
Classroom Messages
Messages of interest in, concern and action for the environment on classroom
walls, bulletin boards, other spaces
Furniture arrangements, seating
Arrangements for learning about the environment – natural materials, tables,
displays, facilities
Images of learners studying the environment
SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL MESSAGES
Activity Structures/Rituals of Social Interaction
Rules of conduct/rituals of interaction and behavior
Invitations to those outside the community, parents, speakers and others
Organization of environment/furniture to support connection & communication
Teaching Approaches
Teaching strategies that guide learning behaviors
Lecture, Problem solving, Action learning, Activism
Teacher enthusiasm for the topic
Environmental fairs/home projects
Relative priority given to environmental education
Opportunities for student inquiry/research
Involvement of parents
Opportunities for out of classroom activities
POLICY MESSAGES
School Administration
Timetabling – amount of time devoted to environmental/sustainability topics
Nature of change to environment/ecological leadership in the school
Library resources available
Emphasis on acquisition of environmental resources
Library displays
Extra to classroom experiences – environmental clubs, activities, field studies,
tree planting days, school-wide environmental or science programs,
special speakers
Financial resources allotted to environmental education
Generalist or specialist teaching emphasis
Collaboration among teachers
Physical Use of School Facilities
Special environmental resources distribution area
Special rooms or outdoor spaces set aside for environmental education
District
Support for environmental consultancy role
District resource centre for educators
Nation/Province/State
View of the importance of environmental education in the curriculum
Amount of time officially allotted to environmental education
Existence of a program of studies devoted to environmental learning
Testing practices/standards of achievement related to environmental learning
Community Involvement
Community involvement/Parent groups/support
Corporate sponsorship
Media involvement
Opportunities for criticism
Activism
Acts or States of Being that Contribute to a “Life Ethic of Positive Moral Value”
Rokeach* (1976) p. 92, with additions by Caduto (1985) p. 33**
Fien (1993) also noted that an important feature of the critique of curriculum
research is the “acknowledgement of multiple discourses and contestation over the nature
and meaning of educational activities” (p. 15). Perhaps this contestation is at its height in
the field of environmental education where, as noted by Thomashow (2002), “…in a field
as wide-ranging as environmental studies, there will always be curricular debates about
the most important content, or what is often referred to as the ‘knowledge base’ of
environmental studies” (p. 182). Classroom design structures, both physical and social
are the embodiment of social values. They impact students, teachers and communities
as important structures that teach. Using the resources presented in Tables 1 and 2 and
the central ideas of this article, I engage student teachers in semiotic interpretive readings
of learning to help them understand how cultural values and perspectives on the
environment are represented through curriculum, school and community messages. The
purpose is to help student teachers become wide-awake to the understanding that
educators reproduce these messages as part of their knowledge of the cultural code. With
this knowledge, they may see the value of disrupting structures that do not serve to help
build important values that will help to address the current environmental crisis.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Viewing learning settings using a semiotic lens helps us to consider the questions,
“How are the messages representative of recurring patterns in our culture’s production of
human meaning?” and “What messages must we, in light of current environmental
challenges, rethink and perhaps disrupt?” The ways that students are impacted by these
culturally constructed structures depend on social and personal developmental influences
that are both internal and external (ACNielsen, 2004; Eco, 1976; Taylor, 2003; Yarbrough,
2001). Learners are consumers of sign and symbol systems. They are also symbol users.
One of the larger goals of education is to enhance the capacity of learners as sign
interpreters. Another goal is to help them learn to be creators and users of sign systems.
Understanding the complex ways that we use these sign and symbol systems provides
powerful insight into how we communicate with learners in environmental education
settings. The intention of this work is to provide resources to help educators consider new
ways of conveying positive environmental messages, and thereby, new ways of inhabiting
learning environments to embrace new and more positive environmental behaviors and
actions. Helping educators gain insight into a semiotic consideration of learning settings
offers them a powerful resource for identifying and critiquing the kinds of messages that
currently exist. They may also then learn to conceptualize and build structures that teach
new habits and routines that inspire responsible actions that help heal the planet and
improve the well-being of all who inhabit the Earth.
REFERENCES
ACNielsen. (2004). Best practices in classroom design. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/EducationSectors/PrimarySecondary/
SchoolOpsPropertyManagement/ClassroomDesignReportPDF.pdf
Ayers, W. (2001). To teach: The journey of the teacher. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Ball, S. J. (Ed.). (1990). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. London,
UK: Routledge.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bauer, J. (2006). Forging environmentalism: Justice, livelihood and contested
environments. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Berbekar, R. (1989). Signs and symbols: Semiotics in education. ATA Magazine, 70(1),
31-33.
Bernstein, B. (1972). A critique of contemporary education. In C. Cazden, V. John & D.
Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Bingler, S. (1995). Place as a form of knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bowers, C. A. (1990). Implications of Gregory Bateson's ideas for a semiotic of art
education. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 31(2) 69-
77.
Caduto, M. (1985). A guide on environmental values education. UNESCO-UNEP
International Environmental Education Programme. Environmental Education
Series 13. Paris: UNESCO.
Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on
Teaching (pp.432-463). New York: Macmillan.
Corrigan, D. & Dillon, J. (Eds.) (2007). The re-emergence of values in science
education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Crenshaw, S. R. (1991). A semiotic look at kindergarten writing. Paper presented at the
meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cunningham, C. (2002). Buildings that teach. American School and University.
Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://asumag.com/mag/university_buildings_teach/
Cunningham, D. J. (1984). What every teacher should know about semiotics. Urbana,
IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication, National Institute of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 250282)
Danesi, M. (1994). Messages and meanings: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto:
Canadian Scholars Press.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fien, J. (1993) Ideology critique and environmental education. In J. Fien (Ed.),
Education for the environment (pp. 14-19). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University
Press.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New
York: Vintage Books, Random House.
Golder, J., & Gerber, A. (1990). A semiotic perspective of text: The picture story event.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(3), 203-219.
Gough, N. (1993). Learning with environments: Towards an ecological paradigm for
education. In I. Robottom (Ed.), Environmental education: Practice and
Possibility (pp. 49-67). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Greater Vancouver Regional District (2003). Why build green? Ten key questions
answered. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from
http://www.sgsep.com.au/system/files/Urbecon_Aug 08(Web).pdf
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive powers.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hart, P. (2003). Teachers’ thinking in environmental education: Conciousness and
responsibility. New York: Peter Lang.
Jickling, R. (1992). Why I don't want my children to be educated for sustainable
development. Journal of Environmental Education. 23(4), 5-8.
Laferriere, D. (1979). Making room for semiotics. Academe, 65(7), 434-40.
Lansdown, G., Heykoop, C. & Hart, S. (2008) CREDPRO: The Child: Development
Needs & Rights.The International Institute for Child Rights and Development.
Retrieved from March 5, 2010 from
http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=425947
Lemke, J. (1987). Social semiotics and science education. The American Journal of
Semiotics, 5, 217-232.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
McLaren, P. (1986). Schooling as ritual performance. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Palmer, J. A. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice,
progress and promise. London: Routledge.
Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected Papers. C. Harshorne and P. Weiss (Eds.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1985). Logic as semiotics: The theory of signs. In R. E. Innis (Ed.),
Semiotics: An introductory anthology (pp. 4-27). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Saussere, F. de (1959). Course in general linguistics. (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Trans).
London: Peter Owen Philosophical Library.
Shapiro, B. (1996). Reading the furniture: The semiotic interpretation of science learning
environments. In International handbook of science education I (pp. 609-621).
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shapiro, B. (2010). Research resources to study the environmental messages of school
learning settings. In D. F. Berlin & A. L. White (Eds.), Promising practices to meet
global challenges in science and mathematics education (pp. 51-60). Columbus,
Ohio: International Consortium for Research in Science and Mathematics
Education.
Shapiro-Zimnicki, B. (1989). Energy sleuth: A grade six energy education program.
Edmonton: Alberta Energy.
Shapiro, B. & Kirby, D. (1998). An approach to consider the semiotic messages of
school science learning culture. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(3),
221-240.
Shapiro, B., Richards, L., Ross, N. & Kendall-Knitter, K. (1999). Time and the
environments of schooling. Learning environments research, 2, 1-19.
Siegel, M. (1989). Critical thinking: A semiotic perspective (Monographs on Teaching
Critical Thinking No. 1). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Taylor, A. P. (2003). The learning environment as a three-dimensional textbook.
Children’s Environments, 10(2), 104-117. Retrieved January 6, 2010, from
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/10_2/10_2article8.pdf
Thomashow, M. (2002). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Watkins, J. M. & Mohr, B. J. (2001). Appreciative inquiry: Change at the speed of
imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Williams, R. (2000). Culture is ordinary. In B. Levinson (Ed.), Schooling the symbolic
animal: Social and cultural dimensions of education (pp. 31-35). Lanham,
England: Rowman & Littlefield.
Yarborough, K. (2001). The Relationship of School Design to Academic Achievement of
Elementary School Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED475272). Retrieved March 7, 2009 from ERIC database