The relationship between physical space and learning process has been recognized by architects and educationalists since the end of the 19th century. Although initial research were conducted about the primary and secondary school environment, focuses on university environment increased in recent years (Graetz and Goliber, 2002; Jameison, 2003, 2008; Jessop, Gubby and Smith, 2012; Joint Information Systems Committee, 2006; Oblinger, 2006, Popenici and Brew, 2013; Temple, 2007, 2008a, 2009b).

The context of teaching and learning become important in the 21st century, while pedagogy was associated with operations of teaching and learning in the past. Researchers’ focus changed their directions. Questions emerged to grasp the relationship between existing teaching spaces and new pedagogies. The creation and renovation of learning is currently a priority for educators working in higher education. The emphasis in learning is on active construction of knowledge by the learner. So, environments should provide experience, stimulate the senses, encourage exchange of information, and offer opportunities for rehearsal, feedback, application, and transfer in order to support learning (Chism, 2006a).

Moreover, the physical environment can be considered as the second teacher since space has the power to organize and promote pleasant relationship between people of different ages, to provide changes, to promote choices and activities, and for its potential for sparking different types of social, cognitive, and affective learning. The space within the school mirrors the ideas, values, and attitudes, and cultures of the people within it (Sanoff, Pasalar, & Hashas, 2001). This aspect of the physical environment is entitled hidden curriculum. Although the physical environment has been accepted as a dimension of the hidden curriculum, less research on the physical environment have been conducted. Therefore, the author of this paper conducted a research for her PhD thesis entitled ‘Grounded theory study: Discovering physical environment as hidden curriculum’. Therefore, the main purpose of the thesis is to investigate the functions of the physical environment as one dimension of hidden curriculum during university education. As a nature of the grounded theory study, general question ‘What is the hidden curriculum of the physical settings throughout university education of the undergraduate students?’ initiated the study. Other attendant questions that guided this study are:

1. What are the primary agents of socialization within our institution? What are the contexts and processes through which they work? What norms do they express?    

1.1. How do physical spaces become social?

1.2 How do the faculty building and campus environment affect university students’ socialization process?

1.3. What are the factors that hinder or support students’ engagement in various activities?

From the perceptions of the undergraduate students, data on distinctive and common features of physical environment in the educational building and campus environment were obtained in order to understand the physical environment. The results of this thesis were multidimensional and this paper is related to one of the dimensions concerning socialization. 

Chism, N. (2006).Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis: The ES Corridor Project. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp.16-27). Washington: EDUCAUSE. Graetz, K.A., & Goliber, M. J. (2002). Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations and new Frontiers. In N.V.N. Chism and J. Deborah (Eds) The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments: New directions in teaching and learning (92, pp.13-22). Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 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. 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. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270 Joint Information Services 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 Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks. Sage. Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a change agent. In , D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Popenici, S. & Brew, A. (2013). Reading walls on university corridors: transitional learning spaces in campus. In Embodying good research - What Counts and Who Decides? AQR/ DPR Downunder. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Sanoff, H., Pasalar, C., & Hashas, M. (2001). School building assessment methods. School of Architecture, College of Design, North Carolina State University with support from the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Temple, P. (2007). Learning Spaces for the 21st Century: A review of the literature. Higher Education Academy, London. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/Learning_ spaces_v3.pdf