Finding literature on computer-assisted classrooms (CACs) was not an easy task. Soon after beginning my research, I learned that there are no established terms for classroom designs, there are no widely accepted theories about CACs, and there is almost no systematic empirical studies on the relationship between learning and the use of computers in higher education classrooms. However, because the challenge that I chose—Learning Artifacts in Higher Education—has been address by students in previous semesters, I had the literature from Carter-Ching, Levin, and Parisi to use. I was also fortune enough to obtain an article from Thomas Clemens, Division Chair for Humanities and Fine Arts at Heartland Community College that details the theory behind the design of their computerized classrooms. Finally, I was also able to uncover a new text on smart classroom design, Hard Facts on Smart Classroom Design. This text like many others in this field focuses on layout and design of smart classrooms rather than how design and layout affect learning. For this reason, I used the text as a reference rather than scholarly work on the issue or learning in CACs.
The article "Why Classrooms? Case Studies of the Artifacts for Learning in Higher Education" (Carter-Ching, Levin, Parisi 2003) describes the renovation of a conventional classroom into smart classrooms and the trials and tribulations that ensued. As explained in the article, "The renovation of this classroom not only introduced new technologies and improved the existing artifacts for learning in the room, but it also redefined the 'front' of the room." As the article further explains a whiteboard was planned to be installed behind the pull-down projector screen on the south wall of the room. But because the whiteboard was not installed, the front of the room was organized toward the north wall where the blackboard was located. So on a daily basis the 'front' of the room changed. If the class used the LCD projector and projector screen, the 'front' was the south wall. If the class use the blackboard, the 'front' was the north wall. Eventually, the whiteboard was installed and the south wall was finally established as the front of the classroom.
The article "Artifacts of Knowledge and Practice in University Teaching and Learning" (Carter-Ching, Levin, Parisi 2003) describes the results of observations of several higher education classrooms. From the research the authors created a taxonomy of classroom artifacts: concrete carriers, concrete conveyors, inscriptions, texts, virtual artifacts, and ambient artifacts. A detailed explanation of the taxonomy is listed in Table A located below.
TABLE A: Taxonomy of Classroom Artifacts
Artifact Types Definition Examples concrete carriers
Physical objects in the classroom environment which cannot convey or display explicit meanings or knowledge directly, but may carry meanings based on their condition, size, and placement within physical space.
Classroom furniture that communicates the nature of authority, expected modes of participation, and even normalcy of users' age and body type.
concrete conveyors
Physical objects in the classroom whose function is to explicitly display representations of knowledge.
Computers, LCD projectors, overhead projectors, projector screens, VCRs, etc.
inscription
Written or printed objected with are particularly meaningful for a group of people, require specialized understanding to interpret in significant ways, represent crystallize knowledge or information, and focus or organize activity.
An equation written on the blackboard, a graph projected onto a screen via PowerPoint, etc.
texts
Lengthy written objectives that occupy multiple display spaces (pages, screens, etc.)
Books, articles, outlines, videos, films, simulations, transcripts, etc.
virtual artifacts
Gestures used by instructors to create "artifacts in the air", which they would then ask students to attend to and interact with, as if these virtual artifacts were physically present and visible rather than imagined.
An instructor referring back to an outline which has been erased from the blackboard or an instructor drawing objects in the air.
ambient artifacts
Sound, temperature, lighting, and other ambient features that contribute to or inhibit student learning.
Sound, temperature, lighting, an other ambient features which can influence learning.
The article also describes a case study of an outstanding instructor who "created an authentic picture of expert knowledge" for her students. As the article further explains, "[The instructor] not only drew together multiple information sources about adolescent sexuality (the aforementioned issues of policy, behavior, social trends, etc.), but she also displayed inscriptions and texts that are consistent with the types of artifacts encountered by professionals in this field, and helped her students to interpret them. In addition to PowerPoint outlines of information, she included excerpts of actual legislation in discussing educational policy, statistical tables and charts when describing results from large-scale survey data, and narrative individual case histories to illustrate psychological dimensions of sexual identity and their relation to self esteem. Student thus received not only a descriptive treatment of the topic area, but more importantly, an active experience in expert practice (or as class as one can get in a large lecture, anyway)" (Carter-Ching, Levin, and Parisi 2003).
In the article "Designing Classrooms for a Social-Cultural Rhetoric" (Clemens 2000) The Division Chair for Humanities and Fine Arts at Heartland Community College describes the five aspects of computerized classrooms that needed to be included in the design in order to enable the teaching of social-cultural rhetoric. A detailed explanation of the five aspects take from the article is listed in the Table B located below. The explanations not only include the specifics about the design, but also the reasoning behind and the benefit of each aspect.
TABLE B: Classroom Aspects for a Social-Cultural Rhetoric
Aspects Description An Unobstructed Discussion and Presentation Area
An unobstructed space in the center, enabling students to see each other during class discussion, was a priority to support class-wide interaction. The computers are to be places on tables around the outside of the room. The center space is large without visual and auditory obstruction. A series of narrow tables, five feet long, are set up in the center of the room in a horseshoe arrangement. The tables allow students to interact face to face--in pairs, small groups, and class-wide.
The Decentering of the Computer and Other Technology in the Classroom
When computing, the students face the wall. This integrates the computer into the work of the classroom without making it the center of attention and without creating physical obstacles to discussion and the social space in the center of the room. Our classroom design supports several pedagogies: interaction, collaboration, class presentation (student or teacher), and individual work. At the tables and at their computers, students can interact with student all around them.
Multiple Work Places for Each Student
Our classroom design has to support quick transition from individual to small group to class-wide activity. Lightweight chairs are the only furniture that has to be moved to accommodate these transitions. Our request for chairs on rollers was denied. Nevertheless, light weight chairs allow students to move back and forth freely between the horseshoe table the computer stations. This provides students with two individual workstations, one at the horseshoe table and one at a computer station.
An Unobtrusive Instructor's Station
The horseshoe table allows a collective space that is not dominated by a particular point. The instructor station is table height and situated at one end of the horseshoe's "legs." The instructor's computer is partially recessed into the tope of the instructor's desk to prevent obstructing the students' and instructor's view of each other. A visual presenter (digital document camera) and a VCR are components of the station. On the wall behind the instructor's station is a marker board. Each of the classrooms (and this is true for the whole campus) has a ceiling mounted LCD (liquid crystal display) projector, which projects onto an eight foot by eight foot screen which can be pulled down in front of the maker board. The LCD projects the instructor's computer screen, the VCR, and any items placed on the visual presenter. This collective space also facilitates unobstructed viewing of the presenter, the marker board, and a projected image on the screen.
Technology that Allows the Classroom to Cross Its Boundaries into the Larger Culture
In the social-cultural rhetoric, the classroom is a part of the world. Computer and audio-visual technologies reduce the relative isolation of the classroom, allowing ongoing rhetorical analysis of cultural aspects that exist in the general culture. The HCC Writing Program strives to use media to bring larger cultural contexts into the classroom through Internet sites, videos, and CD-ROMS. Moreover, HCC writing instructors value students work and the role is plays in a learning community. The visual presenter allows handwritten notes to be projected wide screen without conversion to another form. A constant sharing of student work places a visible value on it. It also allows for instant recognition of differences, which can be the focus of further discussion and critique. In addition, instructors project slides, overheads, and print documents through the visual presenter. By using such technology skillfully, instructors help students apply concepts of forum, purpose, and cultural contexts to the events, practices, and attitudes in the world so vividly displayed by the media.
The article does a wonderful job of linking learning outcomes and pedagogical methods to the design features of a computer-assisted classroom. It should be a model for classroom design. Return to Top È
Participants
Participants in Part I of the study were community college faculty members in an institution where I teach. I informally asked fellow colleagues who teach in computer-assisted classrooms (CACs) if I could observe one of their classes. All faculty members who were willing to participate signed a consent form.
Participants in Part II of the study were also community college faculty. An email message containing the address for the online survey was sent out to faculty members. A handout was also put in all faculty mailboxes in the department of English and Critical Studies office. Later in the week after the first email, a reminder email was sent out. Faculty members who were willing to participate completed the online survey. Their passive consent was given by completing the survey.
Data Collection - As part of this research project, I collected photos and information about several computer-assisted classrooms (CACs) used by fellow faculty members, conducted observations of a few classes taught in CACs, and developed and conducted an online survey intended to gauge faculty artifact use, frequency of use, and problems. In addition, the online survey was intended to get faculty input on best practices, designs, problems, concerns associated with teaching in CACs.
Computer-Assisted Classroom Designs - The department of English and Critical Studies exclusively maintains only 4 computer-assisted classrooms (CACs). Those classrooms are D219, D234, D242, and C132. The CACs located in the D-wing were new additions for the Fall 2002 semester. The majority of faculty who teach in CACs actually teach in other department CACs. M222 & M221 are an examples of older CACs maintained by the department of Computer Science and Information Technology. Information and photos about the aforementioned labs are located at the following links:
D219 D234 D242 C132 M222 & M221
Observations
I observed two classes (class A and class B) in computer-assisted classrooms (CACs). Class A was a medium-sized (15-25 students) composition course. Teaching methods used on this day included instructor lecture and small group collaboration. The CAC in which class A was located contained four rows of computers. All the computers, including the computer located inside the instructor's station were Dell Optiplex GX260 computers running Windows 2000. During the period in which I observed, class A was working on creating brochures for their final project of the semester. Students used a variety of software to complete the project—primarily Microsoft Publisher, Internet Explorer for research on search engines (www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.msn.com), Microsoft Word, and Parkland Student Email. Students worked in groups with Microsoft Publisher to develop the layout of their brochures. Students also individually and together to search the internet for pictures and ideas for their brochure. Two students used Microsoft Words. One of the students was working on her paper. This student was off-task. Students also individually checked their email. One group took the time to set up a group email list in their address book. Because the students were working in groups the majority of group members worked on one monitor at a time. Each group had one member or two that was focused on an individual task away from the group at least part of the time. Less centralized groups worked independently. One group at one time moved away from the computers to form a half circle and discussed the details of the assignment. One group member remained independent on a computer. This student was compiling a Microsoft Word document full of graphics from the internet. During this observation the instructor used the instructor station, LCD projector, the projector screen, and the whiteboards during class time. The results of the survey correlate with the activities related to technology that I found in this class.
The CAC in which class B was located contained three rows of computers. Class B was a medium-sized (15-25 students) composition course, also. All the computers, including the computer located inside the instructor's station, were Dell Optiplex 4300 computers running Windows 2000. During the period in which I observed, class B was working on the first half of their End-of-Semester Assessment (EOS). [At the end of the semester all students in all developmental composition courses must write an essay exam for composition course placement.] Students worked independently for the entire class time. All students except for three students were using Microsoft Word to complete the assessment. During class time the instructor only made use of the whiteboard. At 9:43 the instructor direct students to save their work either to a disk or to cgi feedback form located on the course website. While the students were working I spoke briefly with the instructor and learn of the many other methods she used to teaching in CACs. I learned the instructor created an extensive website for her students as a resource. Also she had many techniques for changing the dynamics of the conventional computer classroom. For instance, she often has the students manipulate the instruction station while she teaches from the center of the room. Observing this classroom made me realize that this research project needs more extensive observations to round out the study.
Online Survey
Approximately 25-35 composition faculty members in the department of English and Critical Studies teach in computer-assisted classrooms (CACs). The number of faculty teaching in CACs varies according to enrollment and availability. The online survey for this project was taken by 27 participants.
The survey asked three types of questions in no particular order. The survey asked usage and frequency questions such as "For which of the following composition courses do you use a computer-assisted classroom?", "If you had to pick one way to describe how you most often use a computer-assisted classroom, which would it be?", and "How often do you use the chalkboard(s) or whiteboard(s) in class?" The purpose of asking these questions was to gain a greater understanding of how, how often, when, and why faculty use the learning artifacts in CACs.
The survey also asked problem-solving or management questions such as "What equipment challenges do you encounter when using a computer-assisted classroom? Please check all that apply", "How often do you encounter technical problems with the computer-assisted classroom that requires you to modify your classroom lecture/presentation/lesson?", and "If you indicated in the previous question that you have challenges related to lesson planning and classroom management, what strategies do you use to address those challenges?" The purpose of asking these questions was to gain a greater understanding of the problems faculty encounter while teaching in CACs. In addition, asking these questions provided a list of management techniques faculty members have developed as a result of their experience teaching in such classrooms.
The final category of questions, open-ended input questions, asked faculty members to evaluate their overall experience using CACs. Such samples questions include "What other information can you provide about your experiences with computer-assisted classrooms (problems, complaints, praise, highlights, or advice)", "If you could design your ideal computer-assisted classroom, what features would be included and where would you place important learning artifacts (e.g., whiteboards, LCD projectors, general access computers, or the instructor station)?", and "Taking into consideration your teaching style and the type of learning that you want to occur in your classrooms, is the current design of our department's (or our college's) computer-assisted classrooms meeting your needs? Why or why not?" The purpose of asking these questions was not only to give the faculty an open opportunity to include any relevant information, but also to generate a list of suggestions faculty had for teaching in and/or designing CACs. A sample survey and the detailed results are available at the following links:
sample survey
survey results
A wide variety of information was uncovered in this research project. The survey, however, has provided the greatest wealth of information. The survey reveals that many faculty consider the use of CACs important to their teaching and overall find the current set-up of CACs to be fine. Faculty primarily use the instructor's station and related components and the general student computers with the most frequency. As expected in composition classes, the majority of instructors who teach in CACs indicated that they most often used software such as Microsoft Word for writing and Internet Explorer to browse the internet. Also, Whiteboard(s)/chalkboard(s) is(are) still frequently used. Most interesting has been the detailed comments faculty made regarding their suggestions, perceptions, and ideas about CACs. Some of the most important information related to the two major problems faculty encountered—misuse of computers and managing other activities such as discussion in CACs. Other important information pertained to ideal classrooms designed recommended by faculty members. I believe it is important to privilege the voice of the faculty members who daily/weekly teach in CACs and in the future design CACs based on the pedagogical needs and intended learning outcome of the composition faculty. Furthermore, I think more research on the topic need to be done.
In the immediate future I plan to observe more classrooms and develop a more detailed list of how instructors and students use artifacts in CACs. In addition, more research should be done on computer-aided instruction, particularly as it applies to teaching composition. The research shouldn't focus on problem-solving or new techniques, but rather on the relationship of technologies to the learning of composition and critical thinking skills. Furthermore, an investigation in educational technologies designed specifically for aiding composition skills should be conducted.
This challenge worked out well for me. I learned a great deal about how fellow faculty members use computer-assisted classrooms (CAC)s. I developed an extensive list of uses and suggestions. I am going to extend this challenge over the year to develop a deeper understanding of how fellow faculty use CACs. As part of the extended challenge I am going to observe more teaching and learning in CACs, try to implement some suggestions put forth by faculty members and study student learning as it is related, and look for more literature on artifacts in higher education.
I do not have any suggestions for improving the challenge element of this class the next time it is taught. The flexibility of the project and the complimentary readings both work well for me.
Carter Ching, C., Levin, J. A., & Parisi, J. (April 22, 2003). Why Classrooms?: Case Studies of the Artifacts for Learning in Higher Education. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL
Carter Ching, C., Levin, J. A., & Parisi, J. (April 22, 2003). Artifacts of Knowledge and Practice in University Teaching and Learning. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL
Clemens, Thomas L. (September 5, 2000). Designing Classrooms for a Social-Cultural Rhetoric. Heartland Community College.
Niemeyer, D. (2003). Hard Facts on Smart Classroom Design: Ideas, Guidelines, and Layouts. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
I would like to especially thank my colleagues in the Department of English and Critical Studies for participating in this research project. Their generous participation is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Professor James A. Levin for serving as my mentor for this project, Jeff Bernhardt for his constant input along the way, and Judy Nolan for the project idea and her input. In addition, I would like to thank both the Office of Institutional Research and Evaluation at Parkland College and the UIUC Institutional Review Board for approving my research.