During
this past week, I visited three computer lab classrooms. I observed three different arrangements,
reflecting three different teaching styles and three different school
“personalities.” I say this because I
believe a room arrangement’s success depends on a number of factors: the teaching style of the teacher, the
classroom management systems in place for that teacher, and the personality of
the school as a whole.
The
first classroom was an “Open U” arrangement.
The computer tables were arranged around the perimeter of the room with
an open area in the center. The
teacher’s desk and projection screen were located at the open end of the
“U”. All monitors were visible to the
teacher as she stood at her teaching station in the middle of the room. Students would turn their heads or chairs to
see the projection screen during demonstrations or whole group
instruction. The “Open U” arrangement
allows for wheelchairs, and specific special needs accommodations have been
made per the student’s Individual Education Plan. The door is located at the front of the room,
and the traffic pattern is easy and clear for the students. This arrangement works well for this
teacher. She has classroom management
under control. Occasionally, she has
students working in groups, and the center space allows room for collaborating.
The
large second classroom was arranged in a “Collaborative Grouping”
arrangement. There were tables with one
or two computers on each, with table space available for creating art,
designing storyboards or working with clay.
There were eight learning centers using this table arrangement with 16
computers and seating for 30 students.
The teacher’s desk is off to the side, and the teacher walks around the
room to facilitate the activities of the students. A projection screen is not necessary because
the teacher uses Vision, a classroom management program for the
Windows-based
computers. She can project her desktop
on all computer stations to demonstrate, and can project a particular
computer’s screen to all for showcasing.
Additionally, she can monitor activity without having to be physically
within view of the computer. The traffic
pattern is relatively clear, and the students are busy working on their
projects with their collaborative groups.
The “Collaborative Grouping” arrangement allows for wheelchairs, and
specific special needs accommodations have been made per the student’s
Individual Education Plan.
The
third computer lab is what I would call a “Traditional Computer Lab”
arrangement. Several rows of computers
and tables are arranged horizontally, all facing the dry-erase board and
projection screen. The teacher is
located at the back of the room, with the teaching computer connected to the
overhead LCD projector. When standing,
he can see every student’s computer screen.
There are 35 computers and 35 students in the class. The back row has room for wheelchairs. Specific special-needs accommodations have
been made per the student’s Individual Education Plan. The classes are very orderly, there is a
specific seating chart, and this teacher uses a traditional whole-group
instructional model, giving students time for guided practice and independent
activities. The students rarely work in
groups. The room is quite cramped, but
there are exit doors at both the front and the back of the room.
Overall,
the three room arrangements work well for these teachers. I prefer the “Collaborative Grouping” room
arrangement because it facilitates project-based learning. This particular teacher is a veteran teacher
and very highly qualified. She has
adapted the Technology Integration curriculum to ALL project-based and has set
up learning stations that students rotate in to complete the activities and
projects. She utilizes the classroom
management software very well, and uses its strengths to support her teaching. This
is the model I would encourage my teachers to use – even in a non-computer lab
setting.
Regarding
these room arrangements in supervising staff and planning staff development, I
believe all three have merit for these purposes. The “Open U” arrangement is good for whole
group discussion, as teachers can move their chairs to face the center, while
easily returning to the computer to take notes or look up something on the
Internet, albeit a bit clunky. The
“Traditional Computer Lab” arrangement would work during meetings and
professional development where a 1:1 computer to teacher ratio is needed,
perhaps to learn a new software or data management system. Personally, I see the most potential with the
“Collaborative Learning Group” arrangement.
It has the most flexibility and potential to be used during staff
meetings and professional development sessions to model the kind of learning
activities we promote for our students.
This would give everybody a chance to see it in action without, maybe,
making a “big deal” about the arrangement, and that it is a natural way to “do
things around here.”
