Instructor Perceptions of a Flexible Writing Classroom
Dana Gierdowski, Elon University
Introduction
Designing
Methods
Results
Discussion
Limitations
Conclusion
In this chapter I discuss the development and research of a “flexible” composition classroom at a large southeastern university, which was designed to allow instructors more physical and pedagogical flexibility and engage students more in the writing process. In this space, students brought their own laptop computers to a classroom that was outfitted with mobile furnishings, mobile whiteboards, and multiple LCD displays. In spring 2012, I was a participant observer in the flexible classroom, where I studied both perceptions and uses of the space by a first-year composition instructor and teaching assistant, as well as the students. A number of categories for perceptions and uses emerged from the data; however, in this chapter I present several key findings from the larger study that reveal competing perceptions of the instructor, who perceived the space as both a tool for engaging students, as well as an occasional obstacle to teaching. Despite these obstacles, the perceptions of the space were largely favorable. The findings offered here demonstrate that a flexible classroom environment is a sustainable tool for the teaching of composition, and is one that can be adapted to accommodate a variety of pedagogical activities and learners. In addition, the results also suggest that the perceived obstacles of a flexible learning space are negligible when compared to the overall benefits that such a classroom affords.
As a composition instructor in higher education for over ten years, I have had the experience of teaching in a variety of classrooms—some better than others. There was the room that had a 1970s-era overhead projector and creaky tablet-arm chairs, the 50-person lecture hall (for a class of 20), the U-shaped computer lab where students faced the walls instead of each other, and the computer room where students all faced the classroom front, but all I could see were the tops of their heads due to the height of the computer monitors. My experiences in a multitude of classrooms made me realize how profoundly affected I am by the learning spaces in which I teach. In reflection, I have become aware that the location, square footage, furnishings, and technology (or lack thereof) had a significant impact on the decisions I made as a writing instructor, as well as how engaged and participatory my students were in their own learning.
As I recognized the impact classroom spaces had on my own pedagogy, practice, and psyche, I started to think more critically about how student learning might also be impacted by these spaces. As composition scholar Nedra Reynolds (2004) wrote, “places are hugely important to learning processes and to acts of writing because of the kinds of spaces we occupy determine, to some extent, the kinds of work we can do or the types of artifacts we can create” (p. 157).
Scholars in rhetoric and composition have noted the importance of place as it relates to the work students do as writers. In our discussions of these learning environments, the actual places in which we teach and learn are often neglected as a focus and devalued in higher education (Walls, Schopieray, & DeVoss, 2009; Nagelhout & Blalock, 2004). Nedra Reynolds (1998) reminded us, however, that we should not ignore the physicality and materiality of learning spaces, arguing that “place does matter; surroundings do have an effect on learning or attitudes towards learning, and material spaces have a political edge” (p. 13). As such, she noted, places are critical to the learning process as it relates to writing (2004).
Similarly, Weisser and Dobrin (2001) wrote, “writing is an activity in and of the world,” and it is critical that we turn our attention to all the places where “discourse is taught, studied, and lived” (p. 146; p. 10). Haley-Brown, Holmes, and Kimme Hea (2012) noted that as instructors of composition and rhetoric, we “daily confront spatial relationships that inform, and arguably even infuse, every aspect of our pedagogies”; as such, we should carefully consider “the ways in which spatial rhetorics are imbricated in nearly every aspect of teaching and learning” (“Overview” section, para. 3).
With the popularization and ubiquitous use of mobile technologies in the twenty-first century, learning space planners and researchers have argued that any space in higher education is potentially a space for learning (Brown, 2005; Chism, 2006; Gee, 2006). Others have argued that as a result of their engagement with technology and a need to feel connected, twenty-first century learners’ conception of a learning space is evolving to include any space where they might connect to a network (Brown, 2005; Hochman & Palmquist, 2009). While learning has the potential to happen anywhere on campus, we must not ignore the physical design of learning spaces as a result of our ability to connect any time and anywhere.
The design of learning spaces on higher education campuses has received increased attention in recent years, particularly in the design of libraries and STEM classrooms (Beichner et al., 1999; Dori & Belcher, 2005; Foster & Gibbons, 2007; Gaffney, Housley-Gaffney, & Beichner, 2010; Nixon, Tompkins, & Lackie, 2008). However, little research exists on how the design of learning spaces influences those who actually use those spaces, particularly first-year composition teachers. In most colleges and universities, introductory composition courses are compulsory, which means that most students will take a writing course during their first year. As the instructors who teach these courses, we have access to incoming students in numbers that teachers in many other disciplines do not; consequently, we have the opportunity to help students build a foundation for their writing and to orient them to the rhetorical situations they are likely to face in future classes and professions.
Given that our pedagogy in composition studies is, according to Murray (2003), largely based on a process model, with an emphasis on active, collaborative learning through peer review, it is imperative that we join the conversation taking place in other fields and disciplines on how the design of learning spaces impacts the pedagogy of writing instructors. Learning space researcher Jos Boys (2011) argued that “what is required is a better understanding of the range of existing and potential teaching and learning modes in a particular situation, as well as the particular spatial and architectural conditions which can support them” (p. 18). Therefore, we must research learning spaces so that we might better understand what teaching and learning looks like in those spaces if we ascribe to scholars’ assertions that places are critical to the learning processes of writing (Reynolds, 1998, 2004; Weisser & Dobrin, 2001). Research and assessment of learning spaces for rhetoric and cmposition has been neglected, as there is a dearth of empirical studies in this area. With this in mind, the logical place to start is the space of the composition classroom itself.
In this chapter I discuss the development and research of a “flexible” composition classroom at a large southeastern university, which was designed to allow instructors more physical and pedagogical flexibility and engage students more in the writing process. In this space, students brought their own laptop computers to a classroom that was outfitted with mobile furnishings, mobile whiteboards, and multiple LCD displays.
In the spring semester of 2012, I was a participant observer in the flexible classroom, where I studied both perceptions and uses of the space by a first-year composition instructor and teaching assistant, as well as the students. A number of categories for perceptions and uses emerged from the data; however, several key findings from the larger study reveal competing perceptions from the instructor, who perceived the space as both a tool for engaging students, as well as an occasional obstacle to teaching.
The concept of “sustainability” has been treated in various ways in the academic conversations taking place in areas related to learning spaces and education; for example, Miller-Cochran and Gierdowski (2013) addressed the financial sustainability of a flexible classroom design, while Looi et al. (2010) considered the learning that can be sustained through the use of mobile technologies. However, this work considers “sustainability” in terms of any lasting effects that a flexible classroom might have on processes related to teaching. The findings offered here demonstrate that a flexible classroom environment is a sustainable tool for the teaching of composition—one that can continue to adapt to accommodate a variety of pedagogical activities and learners. In addition, the results also suggest that the perceived obstacles of a flexible learning space are negligible when compared to the overall benefits that such a classroom affords.