Through the process of researching, crafting, submitting, and discussing a proposal for a reconfigured computer lab on my campus, much information was gleaned about how to negotiate competing priorities. In attempting to assert a critical pedagogy of active, self-reflective, critical inquiry in student-centered orientations to space and place, I also had to address the priorities of upper administration, the contexts of my institution, and the budgetary and space constraints of my campus.
In sharing this proposed rhetorical reconfiguration—or deliberate, infrastructural practices of redesigning, appropriating, and transforming existing spaces—of our traditional instructional computer labs, I hope to promote greater attention to space, place, and pedagogy, as well as provide a discussion catalyst among those responsible for crafting computer lab proposals at other institutions. Many readers may not have the constraints of a branch campus situation, but through articulating the contexts and research of my proposal, others may be able to determine their place-specific contexts and administrative priorities as well.
Importantly, these conversations and negotiations take time—a lot of time. I could not have anticipated that the computer lab proposal process would take nearly four years to complete. At a branch campus, there is the impression of a relatively quicker and more streamlined process, so one might surmise that proposal processes could take even longer at larger institutions. For this reason and many others, it is important for those crafting proposals never to give up. Continue pursuing dialogue with upper administration as often as possible. Such conversations often illuminate administrative priorities and perspectives that allow us to craft proposals that directly address administrative needs while maintaining our own pedagogical vigilance.
What also proved invaluable in the computer lab proposal process were discussions among colleagues in other academic units and departments. If a dedicated computer lab is not feasible, having the ability to argue from a place of solidarity among all faculty who use the instructional lab space can be extremely persuasive in convincing upper administration to approve proposals. For example, when arguing for equipment, furniture, and configurations promoting collaborative and/or team-based learning and research, being able to articulate how this will support the goals of other departments or instructors using the computer lab is extremely beneficial. Upper administration must consider whether requests for instructional lab spaces will disrupt or hinder other users of the lab, but may not have the time to poll those other users. If that information is part of the proposal, one potential obstacle is already dissolved.
Recognizing that instructional spaces are rhetorical spaces enables proposals that foster collaborative and cooperative learning, interaction, and team-based research. Furthermore, proposals can address the need for flexible and sustainable lab designs. This “rhetorical space,” as Roxanne Mountford (2001) called it, “is the geography of a communicative event, and, like all landscapes, may include both the cultural and material arrangement, whether intended or fortuitous, of space” (42). And that materiality, she reminded us, always influences what can be done in a given space. Ultimately, this proposal aimed to take advantage of the rhetorical space of our instructional computer labs, even while remaining fiscally vigilant. Lean times call for creative solutions, and for this round, swapping computer lab spaces, upgrading our equipment, and reconfiguring the furniture were the available means.
Another lesson from this process is the value of long-term planning. Because our institutions and their infrastructures often remain decades behind developments in technology—indeed, even in pedagogical approaches—there is a great sense of urgency whenever we have the opportunity to submit proposals for instructional lab spaces. Nevertheless, upper administration must often consider institution-wide missions, goals, and plans that often encompass five-, ten-, and even twenty-year periods. Assisting upper administration with this work by crafting proposals that align with such institutional timeframes can make our arguments more compelling and relevant, and (at least in my experience) often will garner favor in negotiations for our proposals.
The floor plan for the remodeled space demonstrates a workable and reasonable reconfiguration that will allow collaboration and active learning. Although certainly not a perfect, or even ideal, configuration for instructional computer labs, the proposed space will allow for greater collaboration among students. The new configuration will allow students to move out of the passive role often imposed on them by traditional classroom spaces and, instead, will facilitate active and engaged learning. It is my hope that the hub configuration of the workspace will foster a greater sense of learning community for students than they have been experiencing.
In her empirical study of computer-mediated collaborative learning, Maryam Alavi (1994) noted that “effective use and integration of computers into the classroom requires a departure from the traditional instructional mode so that technology-mediated communication in the classroom becomes pedagogically superior to the alternative modes of instruction” (p. 160). Since Alavi’s article was published, we’ve learned a great deal more about the impact of technology infrastructures, but many of our institutions remain decades behind because of the many obstacles and complex layers of administration and budgeting.
However, my computer lab proposal offers only one possible response to the need for pedagogically sound instructional lab spaces. As more scholars attend to the affordances and constraints of learning spaces, many more questions remain. For example, if the physical and virtual material space and place so profoundly affect identity, how might changes and reconfigurations in the digital environments in which many of students today compose affect their identity? And, how might such struggles affect students' ability to identify audience, attend to that audience, and develop writerly personas? As we focus on such questions—to the critical pedagogy of space/place—how do we also learn to speak to the administrative goals, contexts, and priorities that will help us argue persuasively for the necessary space and funding to create computer lab spaces conducive to student learning in the twenty-first century?