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

Results

Understanding Student Expectations about Writing Classes

The results from phase 1, the student expectations survey (N=371), reveal that 30 percent of the participants never expected to work in a computer lab for their writing class, while 47 percent occasionally expected to be in a lab setting (see figure 3.7). The majority of the participants (73 percent) expected to use their own computers either “always” (38 percent) or “regularly” (35 percent) in their first-year writing course (see figure 3.8).

Seventy-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they occasionally or never expected to be in a computer lab. This could mean that they expected a classroom that would facilitate the transmission model of education, further supported by data in figure 3.9 related to their expectations to hear lectures regularly in class. But it could also mean that they expected to be in an environment where they would have the ability to use their own technology instead of using university-provided technology.

Students were also asked to rate with what level of frequency they expected to experience certain activities in their writing classes. Of particular interest were student responses about their expectations of hearing lectures by the instructor. When asked about the frequency with which they expected to hear lectures, 35 percent responded “always,” 51 percent responded “regularly,” 13 percent responded “occasionally,” and 1 percent reported "no expectation" (see figure 3.9); of note is the fact that no respondent reported "never" expecting to hear a lecture. The implications of these results are discussed in the discussion section of this chapter.

Figure 3.9. Student expectations for hearing lectures.

Addressing Student Preferences about Classroom Design

Student conceptual maps included several repeated elements that we coded in our analysis to provide an indication of what elements students preferred in their “ideal” writing classroom. These elements are grouped into categories in the three sections below. The maps were created after students had completed almost a full semester of first-year writing.

Overall positioning and arrangement. In their conceptual maps, students indicated where they would place the instructor, how they would arrange the seating for students, and sometimes whether or not those positions were changeable and facilitated by mobile furnishings (see figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10. Instructor positioned at center of classroom.
Click image for full-size view

Instructor positioning. The majority of student designs favored a teacher-centered model, either with the teacher appearing at the front of the room or in the center or the room (see figure 3.11). Students placed the instructor at the front of the classroom over twice as often as they placed the instructor at the center of the classroom, 54 percent versus 25 percent respectively. Four other students placed the instructor’s station in the corner of the room, but still in the classroom front. Only one student did not clarify the instructor position. A teacher’s desk was provided near the back of the room, but the instructor appeared to be mobile during the class, able to move among student groups.

Figure 3.11. Instructor positioned at front of classroom.
Click image for full-size view

	Front	Center	Corner	Other
Instructor position in room	13	6	4	1

Table 3.2. Instructor position on student conceptual maps.

Student arrangement. When coded to account for the ways students arranged seating in the room, the maps showed that students placed themselves in groups 33 percent of the time (see figure 3.12), in a horseshoe or semicircle 21 percent of the time, in rows 17 percent of the time, and in a circle 17 percent of the time. The three other arrangements that students created included two maps that placed students in stations around the room working on different aspects of projects or for different purposes. The remaining map had desks arranged in a somewhat haphazard fashion around the room.

Figure 3.12. Students arranged in groups.
click image for full-size view

	Groups	Horeshoe	Rows	Circle	Other
Arrangement of desks/tables	8	5	4	4	3

Table 3.3. Arrangement of student desks/tables on student conceptual maps.

Instructor mobility. Three maps indicated a level of mobility for the instructor during the class session, generally indicated by the kind of technology provided for the instructor and a notation. For example, one map indicated that the teacher would have a tablet computer, but the instructor was positioned at a lectern in the front of the room. Another map provided the instructor with a laptop, which could be interpreted as providing a level of mobility. By contrast, fifteen of the student maps made furnishings for the students mobile (see figure 3.13). Of those, nine indicated that both chairs and desks/tables would be mobile. Five students only indicated that the chairs in the room would be mobile, and one student indicated that just the tables would be mobile (but not necessarily the chairs).

Figure 3.13. Students with mobile furnishings.
click image for full-size view

Classroom technology. All student maps indicated some kind of technology in the classroom, but the maps varied widely in terms of what technology was included and for whom the technology was intended. When coding the maps, we focused on technology for students and for instructors and have divided the results for discussion accordingly.

       Student technology and resources. Many student maps indicated what writing technologies students would have access to in the classroom. The vast majority of participants indicated that individual technology would not be provided by the institution; either technology was provided by the student (see, for example, figure 3.14) or not included on the map at all. Of the seven maps including institutionally provided technology for students, four indicated the provided technology would be something other than a traditional desktop or laptop computer. All participants suggested that students have access to a tactile, touchscreen technology such as an iPad, tablet, or surface table.

Figure 3.14. Student-provided technology.
click image for full-size view

Two maps also indicated that one or two desktops would be provided in the room for community use. On one map, one desktop was provided as a “loaner” computer for students who might have forgotten their own technology, and in the other map, two desktops were provided in a research area for student use.

       Instructor technology. Student participants were far more likely, if they included instructor technology, to include technology provided by the institution. Six students provided desktop computers for the teacher, and only one of those also provided the same technology to students. One participant gave the instructor a laptop; ten participants did not include technology for the instructor on their maps at all (see table 3.4).

	What Technology is Included?		Total
Institution Provided	Desktop	6	14
	Laptop	1
	Other *	7
No Instructor Technology Included on Map			6

Table 3.4. Technologies provided for instructor use on student conceptual maps.

On the seven maps that included a technology we classified as “other,” two students gave the instructor tactile surfaces for computers such as an iPad, tablet, or surface table. Both of these were participants who gave the same technology to students. Three students included surround sound and speakers as the primary instructor technology in their classroom designs. One student included two gaming consoles, and one student only included a document camera as an instructor technology. Three other students who gave the instructor a desktop computer also included document cameras. Only one student provided the instructor with remote technology for computing.

       Room aesthetics. Student participants included several elements of room aesthetics in their classroom designs. Sixteen students (64 percent) included windows in their designs, and several made mention of natural lighting. One specified no natural light, but lighting that changes color to set a mood. Six students made specific requests regarding seating. Two indicated that they would like reclining chairs, and four included soft seating in their design: two couches and two with bean bags (see figure 3.15). Two students even included snacks in their classroom designs. Additionally, two students included resources that fall outside of the traditional resources used to teach writing; one included a Lego play area in his classroom design, and one student, who included gaming consoles in the design, included a fireplace in the middle of the room along with art on the walls see Figure 16).