--- Forwarded Message from Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:48:04 -0700
>From: Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Kirk Anderson <[log in to unmask]>, LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #6032 LL furniture/layout dilemma
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
We have two computer labs with forward facing, traditional rows, and
one with a U-shaped layout. I have given and attended workshops in
labs with the cluster arrangement, and it is my least favorite. I
don't particularly like the traditional row arrangement, either. I
like the U-shaped layout best. With hard-wired equipment, I can't
imagine a way to make moving the furniture from one layout to another
convenient and reliable. If you had laptops and wireless networking,
it might be possible.
I would challenge some of the assumptions held by the faculty who
favor traditional rows, as described in Kirk's first paragraph,
quoted below. Depending on monitor size and placement, sightlines
can vary from good to poor. If you have wings or dividers between
student stations to minimize student-to-student contact, these are
likely to degrade sightlines further. Unless the students are very
spread out, it is likely that instructors will be unable to see their
hands and work surfaces, so cheating and passing notes during exams
is relatively easy. Students are likely to be able to see the
monitors of those in the rows in front of them, promoting cheating
and causing distraction.
The greatest distraction is always the student's own computer. In
the traditional layout, the teacher cannot see any of the student
monitors. Many students may appear to be on task, when they are
really surfing the net, reading their email or logging onto Napster.
Faculty may have the illusion that the traditional layout produces a
traditional classroom experience, but it is unlikely to be true.
Moving from student to student, to solve problems or give individual
help, is not easy for the faculty in this layout.
While the U-layout is not flawless, I think it meets the needs of
instruction fairly well. Students pivot their chairs to face the
instructor during the lecture phase, then pivot back to their
computers for the practice phase. This makes it obvious if everyone
is paying attention to the instructor, and removes the distraction of
the monitor from the student's sightline. The teacher can see both
the students and their monitors fairly easily. When the students turn
back to their computers, right behind their monitors is the wall,
which minimizes distraction by other students. The instructor can
move to the center of the U, and quickly survey all students
activities. Observing student difficulties and moving to help
individual students is much easier with this layout.
If I could choose the shape of my labs, I would pick a trapezoid.
The student computers would be arranged in a splayed U (with angles
of perhaps 105 degrees, rather than 90). The instructor's station
would be at the wide opening of the U. (In the ascii graphic below,
"s" represents a student station).
_________
/ s s s s s\
/ s s\
/ s s\
/ s s\
/ s s\
------teacher-------
This would give the best sightlines for the teacher and for the
students, and allow great flexibility in the way the room was used.
Arranging the computers along the walls can make running power,
cables and networks easier. It improves wheelchair accessibility and
eases flow into and out of the room. It can lead to fewer computers
per square foot of room space, but we found that if we observed our
university's accessibility guidelines (four feet between the end of
each row and the wall), we actually ended up with the same number of
computers in the room with the U layout as we would have had with a
row layout. A smaller room will hold more computers using a
U-layout. A larger room may hold more by using a row layout. I
would still prefer the U.
Derek
> --- Forwarded Message from Kirk Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: LL furniture/layout dilemma
>
> As we contemplate what our renovated language lab
> will look like, some faculty want it to be primarily
> an instructional space, with some sound and visual
> isolation, clear sightlines to the instructor --a place
> where exercises and even tests can be administered
> with a minimum of student-to-student contact. The
> traditional forward-facing rows would seem to be
> the best layout for that sort of thing.
>
> Of course, other faculty are more excited about
> monitoring individual students doing self-paced
> activities, or having students collaborate in
> twos and threes. These instructors feel they would
> be best served by a cluster or perhaps U-shaped
> arrangement.
>
> These divergent needs have obvious implications for
> choices of hardware and software, but our immediate
> concern is the furniture and layout.
> (Is there any way to allow movement of the desks/carrels
> with mimimum risk to the wiring?)
Derek Roff
Language Learning Center, Ortega Hall Rm 129, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131 505/277-4804 fax 505/277-3885
Internet: [log in to unmask]
|