The Rhetoric of Classroom Space

I was interested in the findings of the Palmquist et. al. study, which noted that students in computer classrooms reported higher levels of contact with teachers and other students. I was a bit disappointed with the lack of in-depth analysis as to the real cause of this, although the authors suggested the focus on in-class writing and student-centered pedagogies were a main reason for the change (54). Of course, Palmquist et. al. compare the computer classroom to a “traditional” classroom—which is assumed to be using current traditional pedagogy and does not include in-class writing time—effectively setting up a sort of straw man argument. I absolutely agree that ANY classroom that is focused on in-class student writing and is using pedagogies that are student-centered achieves a higher level of contact between students and teachers and among other students. But that says nothing of the classroom space—the layout itself doesn’t necessarily determine the discourse that is produced. Or does it? And so I come to my question (which I hope we can discuss during Bethany and my facilitation Wednesday night): to what extent does the physical space of a classroom determine course outcomes and goals? Palmquist et. al. rightly agree that the teacher’s philosophy affects the class the most, but how much effect does the layout have? Couldn’t a bad setting still achieve excellent results, or a great setting achieve awful results, just based on the teacher’s chosen pedagogy? And what does this say about the use of computer classrooms as compared to “traditional” ones?

--eliz25