THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION COMPUTER LAB CLASSROOMS ON STUDENT LEARNING, TEACHING STYLE, AND CLASSROOM APPRAISAL
ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
THE EFFECTS
OF DIFFERENT SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION COMPUTER LAB CLASSROOMS
ON STUDENT LEARNING, TEACHING STYLE, AND CLASSROOM APPRAISAL
ABSTRACT
This study
investigated the physical arrangement of workstations, seating and equipment in
computer lab classrooms and its effect on the social and physical settings of
the classroom. The literature suggests that information technology (IT)
encourages students to "learn by doing" and therefore affects student
learning and teaching style within the technology-rich classroom environment.
Zandervliet and Straker believe that the physical design of the seating,
computer placement, and arrangement of space is often overlooked when IT is
integrated into classrooms. However, no current research was found to support
whether or not the physical design of higher education computer lab classrooms
affects student learning, teaching style, and student and teacher appraisal of
the classroom.
This study
compared two differently arranged computer lab classrooms on the University of
Florida campus. One computer lab classroom was configured in straight rows with
a center aisle, while the other computer lab classroom was arranged in pods
cross-shaped desks with a computer workstation at each end of the desk.
Workstations and room arrangements were evaluated using measurements of the
physical settings from the Computerized Classroom Environment Inventory (CCEI)
instrument. A survey was conducted with 72 students and 5 teachers to appraise
both the social and physical classroom settings.
The CCEI
measures revealed deficiencies in the Computer, Workspace, and Visual
environments in the straight row computer lab classroom, while the pod-arranged
computer lab classroom only had a deficiency in the Computer workstation
environment.
Observations
and student/teacher survey responses revealed that the students in the straight
row computer lab classroom were off task more often, had fewer
student-to-teacher interactions, helped other students more often, and were
distracted more often than the students in the pod arrangement. The frequency
of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions indicated that the
pod arrangement supported more collaboration than the straight row classroom.
Nevertheless, over half of the students in both computer labs liked their
classroom.
Further
research is required to clarify the interactions between students and teachers
in higher education IT classrooms. This study recommends that designers of IT
classrooms (1), first, identify social intentions of the users and (2), second,
design facilities to support student learning and teaching styles with
appropriate equipment, furniture and physical layout.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Technology
is now the real environment shaper of school design.-Spurgeon, 1998: 46a.
Architects, designers, and facility planners are under both societal and
academic pressure to design and build university classrooms that support
rapidly emerging "technological learning environments" (Carlson,
2002; Kettinger, 1991; Report of the IT Review Committee, 2001; and Zandvliet
and Straker, 2001). Their major goal is to consider "providing an
environment designed to enhance a student's ability to understand, observe, and
participate in active learning" (University of Washington Classroom
Support Services, 1998, p 3). Increasingly, universities are struggling to
invest in information technology (IT) and technology-rich classrooms in order
to develop improved models of teaching and learning.
There is a
growing body of empirical research about the impact of computers on student and
teacher interaction and motivation (Zandvliet and Straker, 2001; Carlson,
2002). Some educators (Link to Learn: Technology Tutorials, 2000) believe that
IT motivates individual students to learn by doing even though Liu, Macmillan,
and Timmons (1998) found there was "no [measurable] effect on student
achievement" (p189). Additionally, technology-rich environments affect
both the process of exploration and the teaching style or presentation of the
content (Cohen, 1997). A less understood component of IT classrooms is the
physical design of the seating, furniture, computer placement, and arrangement
of space. Cornell (2003) believes that ergonomic comfort, safety, and health
needs must be addressed in order to promote well-being. Long before technology
and IT classrooms, Sommer (1967) found that the seating position that a student
selected in a general-purpose classroom was highly correlated with their
participation in the class. However, no current research was found to support
whether or not and how the physical arrangement of space, furniture, ergonomic
comfort, and computer placement in computer lab classrooms supports the
interactions and the efforts of the students and the teacher.
1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This study
addresses one part of the. changing IT classroom setting, specifically the
physical arrangement of seating and furniture. Two differently arranged
computer lab classrooms will be evaluated to understand the effect of the
physical seating arrangement on (1) student and teacher interactions, as well
as (2) their satisfaction with the classroom environment. The specific purposes
of this study are to explore whether or not different seating arrangements of
computer tables and computers in computer labs (straight rows versus pods
shaped like a cross with computers at each end) affect:
1a. The amount of observed interaction among
the students and teacher in a class;
1b. The
reported style of teaching that is performed;
1c. The
reported student's perception of their own learning in these classrooms; and
2. student and teacher appraisal with the
classroom setting.
1.3 RATIONALE
There are
claims that technology rich classrooms (1) promote student interaction with
media learning tools, (2) foster interaction among students themselves, (3)
support communication with teachers, and (4) motivate. individual students to
learn by doing (Carlson, 2002, and Zandvliet and Straker, 2001). Despite these
claims, no significant research has confirmed them.
There are
also beliefs that the physical environment plays an important role in the
learning and teaching process. For example, Cornell (2003) believes that the
shift from passive learning to active learning requires students to physically
and mentally be more active. Therefore, the traditional "stand and
deliver" method, which required long uninterrupted sitting, is becoming a
more engaged process where students are allowed "greater movement and
positioning" (Cornell, p 3). Cornell believes this more engaged process of
learning reduces or eliminates drowsiness and muscle fatigue. However, no
research has provided evidence of whether or not and how the physical
arrangement of space, furniture and equipment in differently arranged computer
lab classrooms supports the efforts of students and the teacher. A first step
taken in this study is to systematically compare two computer lab classrooms at
the University of Florida, each with a different seating arrangement, in order
to evaluate whether or not and how these physical arrangements affect student
and teacher interaction and satisfaction.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE
For decades,
the term "classroom" was characterized as a rectangular room where
the "focus was directed to the front where the instructor exercised complete
control of the pace, content, and sequence of activities" by using a
blackboard and overhead projector (Cornell, 2003, p 1). However since 1984,
student computer use in all levels of instruction has almost tripled (CEO Forum
on Educational Technology, 2001) and technology is currently an important part
of the educational process from grade school thiu higher education. Considering
just how to integrate technological changes into current classroom settings is
challenging administrators, faculty, designers, facility planners, and
architects alike. Thus, educators, researchers, designers and facility
planners, who specialize in school design, must learn how to create and
renovate the "technological learning environments" that are slowly
replacing the "one size fits all" classroom (Zandvliet and Straker,
2001). Teaching and learning is no longer about the teacher standing at the
front of the room and the students sitting at their hard, uncomfortable desks.
Rather, it is about these new, complex "technological learning
environments" that are more concerned with the people-machine interaction.
Additionally, they must recognize that behavior related to flow humans teach
and in turn learn is both linked to and affected by the physical qualities of
the complex classroom environment (Gifford, 2002). Examining just one element
of this rich environment, Swanquist (1998) found that comfortable classroom
seating helped to improve the students' attention span and also increased their
retention of information.
In addition
to influencing the shape of the physical learning environment, the
implementation of technology in higher education is challenging educators to
reevaluate their social role as teacher as well as their instructional methods.
Ultimately, technology is slowly changing instruction. The traditional
teacher-centered style of instruction, where teachers deliver the information
and students sit silently taking notes, is slowly being replaced with
student-centered learning (Nair, 2000). Similarly, many believe that effective
learning rarely occurs passively' (Nair, 2000; Halpern, 1994).
Educators
have come to realize that effective instruction focuses on active involvement
of students in their own learning, with opportunities for teacher and peer
interactions that engage students' natural curiosity. (Halpern, 1994, p 11)
Neuman (2003) argues that information technology (IT) is forcing a revolution
in how all of these players think about what makes a good "place of
learning". The term "place of learning" recognizes that learning
can take place in any environment where people are actively motivated to do so.
Student-centered learning requires active and inquisitive students. Hence,
courses and classrooms that emphasize collaboration, computer use, and social
learning are replacing the passive model of learning (Cornell, 2003). Many
educators believe it is important to make this switch away from memorizing a
factual knowledge base to instead helping students learn the critical thinking
skills required to produce knowledge. These higher order thinking skills
include the mental abilities of interpretation, analysis, evaluation,
inference, explanation, and self-regulation (Facione, 1996). Many believe that
technology facilitates critical thinking skills by helping to motivate students
and to retain their attention (Cohen, 1997; Enghagen, 1997; and Kettinger,
1991). Hence, learning environments should be designed in new ways that
encourage the development of student-centered learning skills.
According to
Kettinger (1991), "large sums of money are being expended to build and
support computer classrooms, yet little research has been conducted to
determine their value from either a teaching or cost/benefit point of
view" (p 42). Therefore, a post occupancy evaluation of any new facility
should be required to see if the technology and furnishings are being
integrated properly within different classroom designs. Computer classrooms may
only be effective in facilitating certain' activities. Therefore, not all
courses will require a fully equipped computer lab. Student outcomes should
also be evaluated or compared to a course with similar goals that did not use a
computer classroom. In other words, decision makers should ask, "What are
the learning goals to which technology is applied?" (North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory, 2003). At the University of Florida-the
setting for this research-from the 1996-97 school year to the 1998-99 school
year, the IT and communications budget went from $50 million a year to $62 million
a year resulting in a nineteen percent increase (Office of Academic Technology:
Classroom Support, 2003). Most of this budget was spent on wiring classrooms
for the teachers to use PowerPoint presentations as an instructional tool and
to allow access to the World Wide Web. However, in 2000-2001, the University of
Florida allocated about 3 percent of the IT expenditures to enhance four campus
computer lab classrooms. A more significant budget output was unjustified
because there is little or no evidence to ensure administrators that money
spent to renovate existing classrooms into technology rich settings is
effective. Therefore, empirical evidence is needed to find out whether or not
IT classrooms that are designed to support a student centered learning paradigm,
actually satisfy students and teachers and perhaps ultimately improve student
learning.
Examining
the role of the physical environment and its effect on teaching and learning
can provide universities, architects, designers, and facility planners with a
better understanding of how to design computer lab classrooms. Chapter 2
examines the past decades of teaching methods and learning styles and the
integration of IT into classrooms. Chapter 3 explores the physical and social
characteristics of educational learning environments.
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment