The Impact of Physical Design, L. Bush

NOTE for the reader
This paper begins with a Stephen Crane poem and six introductory paragraphs. After reading and scrolling down through the introduction, you can click for photos and descriptions of three representative computer-supported classrooms at ASU. The paper ends with a conclusion, handout, and works cited page for further resources.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands
And ate of it.
I said,"Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter--bitter," he answered;
But I like it because it is bitter,
and because it is my heart."

What, you might ask, does Stephen Craneâs poem have to do with "The Impact of Physical Design of a Computer-Supported Classroom," which is the title of my discussion? Actually, not a lot. However, I wanted to invoke the image of a beast and of self-pity, because as a teacher in computer writing classrooms, I sometimes feel exhilarated by the opportunities such a classroom offers me and at other times I feel downright sorry for myself--just like the beast of Crane's poem, enjoying a feast on his own heart. Most of the frustrations I experience in computer classrooms center around the issue of the room's physical design, so I have learned about the very real importance and challenge of a computer writing classroom's geographical layout. In fact, the most poorly designed classroom I have taught in felt beast-like, and the horror of its impact on me and my students' experience compelled me to discover more about what the literature was saying on this subject.

While the design and aesthetics of any classroom affect teaching and learning, from my study and my practical experience, I know now that classroom design becomes even more important when computer screens, proximas, VCRs, microphones, and other technologies are complicating a classroom. Lisa Gerarrd of UCLA agrees, insisting that "[C]lassroom space is not a trivial concern. The physical conditions of a composition classroom--computers or not--tell students a great deal about what will go on there and what is expected of them." Gerrard even admits that the physical conditions "have such an extraordinary impact on the success of a course that, whenever possible," she chooses her "teaching schedule by the room allotted to the course" (Myers 150). As a teacher with similar convictions, I want to add my observations to educators' ongoing discussion about physical design in hopes that others who come after me will know sooner or better how to avoid succumbing to beastly self-pity when faced with less-than-ideal class arrangements.

My interest in the impact of a room's spatial design arose from both the exhilarating and deflating conditions I experienced when I first began teaching composition courses. By chance, when I began, I happened to be assigned to teach in three different computer writing classrooms during three consecutive semesters in what are three different, but common, computer classroom designs: 1) the perimeter, 2) rows, and 3) pods. Another possible arrangement is the horseshoe. Because I was new to teaching in computer-writing classrooms, I had no idea how much the physical arrangement of hardware, whiteboards, tables, and chairs or the available technology would either hinder or aid me and my students. In a moment, I will show pictures of the three rooms' spatial arrangements and describe their strengths and weaknesses, working to make suggestions about how to capitalize on a room's design or overcome its weaknesses.

My experiences in these three classrooms also lead me to do field work at Grand Canyon University, ASU WEST, and Mesa Community College in order to observe and also guest teach in the physical spaces where other educators teach. Anyone who teaches in computer writing classrooms has probably already discovered the importance of spatial arrangement. However, as reading and writing teachers, we may take for granted our ability and our responsibility once we understand the impact of a roomâs geography to shape computer classroom spaces. As Michel Foucault, Gail Hawisher, Cynthia Selfe, and Richard Selfe continually remind us: technology is not neutral. See, for example, their essays on "The Rhetoric of Technology" or "The Politics of Power." While we as humanists may sometimes feel at the mercy of technical support to "fix" the machines, according to Selfe, Selfe, and Hawisher, we have the classroom experience and critical thinking expertises to affect, for good, the physical environments where we teach and where we hope students will learn.

For further discussion about these issues, I also recommend Gail Hawisher and Michael A. Pemberton's essay "Integrating Theory and Ergonomics: Designing the Electronic Writing Classroom" in Approaches to Computer Writing Classrooms: Learning From Practical Experience, edited by Linda Myers. In their essay, Hawisher and Pemberton argue that because classroom goals and teacher pedagogies vary widely, there is no "ideal" computer writing classroom. However, they encourage educators to seek flexibility in design and to take active roles, whenever possible, to affect design and technology decisions. "No longer do we feel inclined to let technology (or hardware specialists) drive our curricula," says Hawisher and Pemberton, "and no longer are we likely to assume that technological resources and pedagogical principles are mutually exclusive and independent. In general, we try to find ways to integrate our tools with our teaching, and, in the final analysis, we believe that our teaching philosophies are more important than the technology" (Selfe, 1989) (Myers 37). Gordon Thomas agrees with Hawisher and Pemberton that pedagogy is important; however, his experience at the University of Idaho taught him that "particular hardware and software does encourage some pedagogies more than others" so that while most try to "prevent" technology from "driving the pedagogy," educators like those at the University of Idaho have also found that technologies powerful influence on curriculum and teaching methods are difficult to avoid (Myers 197).

At Arizona State University, the Department of English provides writing instruction in eight different computer classrooms located across a large university campus. The arrangement of computers, white boards, tables, and chairs in each of the eight classrooms varies widely from location to location. Some classrooms are arranged with computers in rows, others with computers in pods, and still others with computers arranged around the perimeter of a room. In addition, certain computer classrooms offer high tech projection and demonstration capabilities, while other rooms offer no such capabilities, making demonstrations impossible. Levels of technical support and maintenance also vary from location to location. All these design and technical variables have created positive and negative impact on composition teachers' pedagogical practice at ASU. Technology and room design both play an important role in influencing our pedagogy.

I would like now to go into greater detail about the three representative computer writing classrooms at ASU and discuss how I experienced their spatial arrangement as a teacher.

From here, CLICK on the room location below to see two photos of each room, a discussion of each room's strengths, and possible solutions for each room's weaknesses.

What has struck me most about all three experiences is that I was the same teacher in all three classrooms; however, the dynamics were very different in the third classroom. Although my final experience was probably much more positive because I had learned to adapt my teaching methods to the computer writing classroom, had become more skilled with the technical aspects of Windows and of the Internet, and had gained access to more user-friendly Web-based discussion software for students, I also believe my success in this final classroom could be attributed to its improved physical design.

To conclude, I would like to read comments about the "ideal" computer writing classroom from colleagues who have published articles about this very issue in Linda Myers' collection. I recommend reading these essays in their entirety, but these excerpts provide useful summary recommendations about room design and technology issues.

For example, Trent Batson at Gallaudet University (an institution mostly for hearing-impaired students), writes that

Tastes and circumstances indeed vary, and sometimes wildly, but several possibilities seem most appropriate for a pleasant, flexible environment with round tables and space at the terminal pod that allows for regular writing and editing of hard copy, one that provides space for notes and textbooks and notepads; that permits students to easily move to one another's terminals and the teacher to move freely among them; that allows students to look up easily (or to turn easily) to face the instructor or another student-colleague when group discussion seems appropriate or to see a projection screen when one particular text is under discussion. (Myers 60)

With such diverse functions [group and individual work, presentations, conferencing, videotapes, etc.], the electronic writing classroom must be able to accommodate multiple and sometimes contradictory spatial requirements. The room must provide space for writing alone and in collaboration; for lectures, conversation in groups, and one-on-one consultations; for machinery and old-fashioned pen and pencil scribbling. It must be far more flexible than a traditional laboratory or lecture hall might be. (Myers 150)

Finally, I have prepared a handout with a useful summary of what Lisa Gerrard encapsulates as conditions that would exist for achieving "The Ideal Computer Classroom" and a citation for the Myers book as a resource. Best wishes to all my teacher-colleagues as you encounter and attempt to tame your own computer writing classroom beasts.

Hawisher, Gaile E. and Cynthia L. Selfe. "The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class" College Composition and Communication 42 (February 1991): 55-65.

Myers, Linda. Approaches to Computer Writing Classrooms: Learning from Practical Experience. New York: State U of New York P, 1993.

Selfe, Cynthia. Creating a Computer-Supported Writing Facility: A Blueprint for Action. Houghton: Michigan Technological U, 1989.

Self, Cynthia L. and Richard Selfe, Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones" College Composition and Communication 45.4 (December 1994): 480-503.