The relationship between physical space and learning process has been recognized by architects and educationalists since the end of the 19th century. Although pioneer researches about the physical environment were conducted about the primary and school interest in the relationship between learning spaces and pedagogy in higher education increase 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).  

Cox (2011) concluded that students like the newly designed, technologically-enhanced teaching spaces. The basic comfort, audibility, and visibility are the main critical features in any room. Therefore, in the 21st century, a single space should have multiple roles. It should allow students to gather, to study, to collaborate, to socialize, to connect to the Internet, to chat, even to eat and drink (Oblinger, 2006). As well as the physical environment role on the students’ socialization and well-being during their university life, 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. Hiller and Hanson (1984) interpreted the building in the Winchester University that if someone reads iconic buildings as a ‘text’, this text represents contemporary learning theories.  In parallel to this, the built environment is read as a tool representing the field specificity. If the building serves the field specificity, it becomes a vehicle of the departments’ works in educational manner.

Although the physical environment has been accepted as a dimension of the hidden curriculum, less research on the physical environment have been conducted. Therefore, one of the authors of this paper conducted a research for her PhD thesis entitled ‘Grounded theory study: Discovering physical environment as hidden curriculum’. The main purpose of the thesis is to investigate the functions of the physical environment as one dimension of hidden curriculum in 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 roles of the physical environment for university education?
2. Which physical characteristics that an academic building should have from the perspectives of students?
3.  What are the factors that hinder or support students’ engagement in academic and social activities?

From the perceptions of the undergraduate students, data on distinctive and common features of physical environment in the built and campus environment were obtained in order to describe the physical environment. The data analysis of the thesis revealed many themes and one of the themes is ‘field specificity’. Correspondingly, in this paper, the field specificity is discussed under the concept hidden curriculum.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 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. 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. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 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 Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a change agent. In , D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. 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