Trying to Break Out of the Box

FutureWatch Reflection #4

As the COMET 1 cohort moves beyond our portfolio presentations we now find ourselves tasked with crafting a design proposal for a learning space as part of our obligations in EDTEC 700. As I found myself scrambling for resources to assist my team in its design proposal project I came across a web article from the Educause Review called “Future of the Learning Space: Breaking Out of the Box” by Phillip D. Long and Stephen C. Erhmann.

Long and Erhmann present a compelling case in sketching out specific guidelines for the design of future classrooms and learning spaces that will serve the needs of the ever-changing technological, academic, and professional needs of learners. The impetus of the article states that the traditional model of education, one in which the faculty is talking and the students are listening and taking notes, is over. They argue that classrooms should be designed with one overarching theme when it comes to the design of the future classroom; we should be focusing on what the students can do and not just what they know (Long and Erhmann, 2005). Thus, traditional classrooms must be redesigned with active rather than passive learning in mind. Some of the guidelines I found the most useful interesting included the following:

• The classroom is optimized for certain learning activities; it is not just stuffed with technology
• The classroom enables technologies to be brought to the space, rather than having technologies built into the space
• The classroom emphasizes soft/comfortable spaces

While the article was written with students of higher education in mind, it is not too much of a stretch to include these considerations in the design proposals of future classrooms in the high school and elementary school levels. Or is it? I look at the set up in my own classroom and find that it runs counter to all of the guidelines listed above. As it currently stands, my classroom is best suited for direct instructor-centered instruction. My room contains 43 plastic, metal, and wood desks that are definitely not designed for long-term comfort. While these desks can be moved to accommodate various instructional models and group activities, there is only so much room we have to work with. My classroom is loaded with technology but it is not built for students to bring their own technology into the classroom. This has been especially true in the recent trend on campus to password protect all new wireless network hubs in order to prevent students from using their own WI-FI devices in the classroom.

If anything, this article reminded me of the frustrating fact that many teachers in the k-12 setting find themselves hamstrung when it comes to trying to follow advice like that of Long and Erhmann. Each of us would love to have tech-friendly rooms with the latest ergonomically designed furniture and adaptable lighting controls. But we often settle for what our current school site budgets allows, which, at the moment, isn’t much. As teachers we can only hope that when/if we are ever in a position to influence design choices for future construction/remodeling at our school sites that we have our voices and the voices of our students heard. I sit here today on a campus that is undergoing such a remodeling process. To my knowledge, neither teacher nor student input was included in any aspect of the design phase.