In Talbert & Mor-Avi’s (2019) literature review on Active Learning Classrooms (ALC), they provided significant evidence supporting ALC’s impact on increased student engagement, elevated classroom performance, and instructors’ use of active learning in their lesson planning. When reading Talbert & Mor-Avi’s (2019) study, I was surprised (and excited) to learn how instructors’ own pedagogical approaches were influenced by the ALC layout. This finding highlights the potential for “play” and pedagogical risk-taking when instructors are provided with spaces that disrupt the traditional lecture-style classroom.
Active learning and praxis (theory-to-practice) main learning outcomes for students in the leadership courses in my department. The creation of an engaging learning environment with high levels of participation is the ideal, but requires instructors to design and model this experience. Below, I present two classroom designs and analyze how they limit and contribute to my course goals of autonomy, student discussion, and engagement.
Issue #1: Limited physical space
As you can see from classroom version 1 pictures, the tables, computers, and chairs do not provide students with much physical space to move around or rearrange the classroom. When I’ve previously taught in this type of classroom, I was limited by the physical space to promote networking and group work between students. In a feedback form, a student recommended more opportunities to interact with different classmates rather than those sitting next to them.
Solution: Flexibility and student engagement
The redesigned classroom eliminated long tables and offers more “neutral” space where students can move around, stand up, and gather for small group conversation. In planning for future classes, I encourage students to meet at a location in the classroom (or nearby outside) where they can have group breakout sessions. I offer students the choice of multiple spaces for discussion to disrupt the formal classroom setup and find opportunities to bond with their classmates in a way agreed upon by the group. To promote flexibility when the classroom space needs to be adapted for large group discussion or presentations, I included wheels on the tables and chairs to rearrange the classroom. I am not against the lecture-format classroom entirely because I recognize its necessity, but do not want it to be the default, and only, option.
Issue #2: Default to instructor-student interaction
When conducting course observations of new leadership instructors, I notice a common dynamic during where students direct their comments to the instructor, rather than inviting their peers to build upon the discussion. This behavior is not the fault of instructors nor students, but an assumption created by long-standing models for teaching (i.e. lecture, instructor as expert) and its reinforcement through classroom design. Most of the leadership classes occur in spaces similar to classroom version 1 (pictured below).
Solution: Circular Classroom Design
I aimed for a layout that did not privilege the instructor nor a singular voice in the classroom. To shift the focus on discussion from instructor-student interaction to student-student interaction, I selected round tables for the classroom redesign. Parsons’ study (2017) suggested “the roundtable classroom promotes interactive learning through a system of accountability” (p.27). Fostering peer-to-peer accountability is necessary in a leadership team and learning environment-- to be successful, the team must rely upon each others’ strengths and support each other through areas of conflict. Another finding from Parsons’ (2017) study was increased ability for students to provide supportive and timely feedback to each other during classroom discussion and active learning assignments. By using round tables, I hope to encourage students to create intellectual communities in which they can share, explore, and give feedback to each others’ ideas.
Issue 3: Technological distractions
The initial design displays long rows of tables with computers available to each student. This type of classroom is common across university campuses due to the use of computers as the “new notebook” and the perceived idea that computers are essential to learning. While I recognize the privilege of having access to an abaundance of computers and other technology to assist learning, I do not think this design was beneficial to fostering a collaborative and student-centered learning environment.
Solution: Limit technology
Although much of the CEP 811 course has focused on integrating technology into the classroom, I do not believe an excess of computers is necessary for teaching in the leadership classroom. Therefore, my redesign removes in-classroom computers and offers a more low-tech option: whiteboards and tv-screens. The whiteboards align the side walls of the classroom while the 2 computers remain at the front. My intention to incorporate more whiteboards rather than compters was for several reasons: 1. Limit distractions: too often college students “hide” behind their computers rather than engaging in discussion 2. Encourage public brainstorming using white space.
Let me know your thoughts on redesigning your classroom space! What recommendations do you have for architects when considering learning goals in the building process?
References:
Rands, M. L. & Gansemer-Topf, A.M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Iowa State University Education Publications, 49, p. 26–33.
Parsons, C.S. Reforming the environment: The influence of the roundtable classroom on design on interactive learning. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), p. 23–33.
Talbert, R. & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Cell press, pp 1–3.