A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Understanding Expectations and Mapping Preferences for Writing Classroom Design

Dana Gierdowski and Susan Miller-Cochran

• Introduction
• Review of Literature
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References
• Acknowledgements

Conclusion: Moving Forward

The results of our study confirmed that students expect to use their own technology in a writing class. Our programmatic resources should be spent not on providing computers to each student for the hour that he or she sits in the physical writing classroom, but on designing spaces that are accommodating and inviting for all students' use of their own technology. We must partner with others on campus to consider how to design sustainable learning spaces that will grow and adapt with students’ changing use of technology. Our BYOT classrooms began to respond to this need, but as we mention in the introduction to this chapter, we quickly learned that instructors felt stifled by the inflexibility of the space in contrast to the mobility of student technology. Student responses in our study seem to agree with the instructors; students prefer a flexible learning space as well.

If we move toward more flexible learning spaces that can accommodate a variety of student-provided technology and physically adapt to the pedagogical needs of the students and instructor, we must prepare instructors for teaching in a learning space that shifts to accommodate these needs. New questions are introduced into the writing classroom when different technological platforms are present: What technologies best facilitate certain writing tasks, and how do we help students gain access to them? How can we help students write effectively and efficiently with the technologies to which they have access? Additionally, preparation for instructors must include discussion of how to use space to accomplish pedagogical goals. Instead of assuming a default classroom setup that cannot be adjusted, instructors can work with an increasingly fluid learning space design. The mobility of the technology and the learning space opens up possibilities, but it can also increase anxiety and time for preparation for many instructors.

In spite of the desire for this mobility, however, students still expect the teacher to be the focus of attention, even as they adopt an understanding of an active learning classroom. The classroom design itself becomes a physical manifestation of the tension many students—and instructors—feel about the physical and authoritative position of the instructor in the classroom. In our program, we designed our newest learning space (finished in fall 2013) to further decenter the classroom, giving the instructor a mobile station and remote access to technology in the classroom. Additional research could investigate the relationship between the mobile environment, the instructor’s position, and student engagement: Assessing, perhaps, how student engagement is affected if the learning space is designed to decenter the classroom—physically move the instructor from a position of centrality—and give students freedom of movement throughout the classroom.

Students' focus on physical comfort and their reliance on an instructional model that feels familiar (one of transmission) also point to a potential move into a “comfort zone” (Boys 2011). Although we might want to help students feel comfortable in the classroom, we don't want to let them fall into a comfort zone that detracts from their learning. Decentering the classroom and having the teacher work from an unexpected position in the learning space is a way to disrupt that feeling of comfort while still providing students with many of the elements that help them feel comfortable enough to maintain a focus on learning.

Ultimately, the flexible writing classroom leaves us with new questions about effective learning space design in classrooms with increasing mobility for instructors and students. As Hunley and Schaller (2009) noted, “Institutions that assess the use of learning spaces on their campuses must also ascertain pedagogical practices that yield optimal learning” (34). Each of these changes in technology use, learning space design, and instructor preparation calls for assessment of new instructional approaches and their impact on student learning.