Bemer Moeller Ball1-2

7/30/2019 Bemer Moeller Ball1-2

1/28

A R T I C L E

Programmatic Perspectives, 1(2), September 2009: 139166. Contact authors:[email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

Designing Collaborative Learning SpacesWhere Material Culture Meets Mobile Writing Processes

Amanda Metz BemerUtah State University

Ryan M. MoellerUtah State University

Cheryl E. BallIllinois State University

ABSTRACT. In May 2007, the Department o English at Utah State University (USU) redesigned itcomputer lab to increase mobility and collaboration during writing projects. Our study shows that dspite the Pro essional and Technical Communication (PTC) eld's eforts to promote writing as a socactive, collaborative practice, many students view computer labs as spaces or conducting isolated,

single-authored work. In this article, we discuss how a combination o movable urniture and mobiltechnology, including wireless access and laptops, can enhance student collaboration in group-basewriting assignments. The lab included both desktop and laptop seating areas, so the authors createdmodi ed worksite analysis designed to evaluate team collaboration in this new layout. These materichanges in the lab allow students to con gure the space according to their needs, ofering them somemeasure o control over three crucial elements o success ul collaboration: ormality, presence, andcon dentiality.

KEYWORDS. collaboration, group work, lab design, materiality, mobility, space, writing

In writing studies, it is widely accepted that writing is a social, collab-orative activity (Bru ee, 1984; J. Harris, 1994; Howard, 2001; Sullivan,1994; Thralls, 1992; Winsor, 1990). Research in the area o collabora-tion covers topics rom con ict among writers in collaborative situations(Burnett, 1993) to the bene ts o con erences in planning a collaborativetext (Bowen, 1993). Collaboration can be seen as making thinking visible(Flower, Wallace, Norris, & Burnett, 1994) when writers talk to one anotherabout their writing, particularly about decisions made during their writing


2/28

140

Designing Collaborative Learning Spaces

process. Much scholarly research related to collaborative writing discusseshow writers collaborate (e.g., Burnett, 1991; Duin, 1986; Howard, 2001;Luns ord & Ede, 1990). This articlelike many studies o collaboration inwriting center sites (e.g., Bru ee, 1994; Clark & Healy, 1996; M. Harris, 1992;

Luns ord, 1991)addresses the how and where o collaboration. In particu-lar, this study ocuses on how student-writers collaborate given the mate-rial conditions o computer labs. In mobile labs, these conditions may beseen as a ordances to collaboration, where in traditional labs, such condi-tions may act more like constraints.

Talk, Please! Creating Collaborative Computer LabsSince computers were rst introduced into the writing classroom, writingteachers have discussed the pedagogical implications o these machinesand the rooms they inhabit. Instructors o writing have long realized thatstudent interaction is a ected by the physical space o a room just as muchas it is in uenced by the presence o a teacher or the technology. Theun ortunate consequence o this realization is that the physical space isan aspect o the classroom that teachers o ten have little control over (seeMirtz, 2004; Nagelhout & Blalock, 2004; Palmquist, Kie er, Hartvigsen, &Godlew, 1998). Thus, writing instructors have a rich tradition o subvertingclassroom design by asking students to meet outside classroom spaces, byarranging desks in circles or groups, or by extending conversations aboutwriting online. According to Gail E. Hawisher, Paul LeBlanc, Charles Moran,and Cynthia L. Sel e (1996), the writing lab was born during a paradigmshi t through which teachers o writing became more ocused on pro-cess than on product. Prior to this shi t, most students sat in individualdesks so they could work alone, but those desks could be rearranged into

small circles or group work and activities such as peer review (pp. 2829).Hawisher and her co-authors noted that this style o classroom resemblesthe newspaper bullpen, where students have individual workspaces, butmay con er with others when appropriate. However, this classroom designremains teacher-centered.

Since Hawisher et al.s (1996) book came out, writing teachers havecontinued to be proactive in their studies o technological learning spaces.For instance, in Sustainable Computer Environments , Richard J. Sel e (2005)

discussed how computer labs serve as community-building areas andsocial-networking sites or students. They constitute technologically richspaces accessible to students to use as workspaces as well as to buildriendships and collaborations that help them achieve their goals. Likemuch o the previous scholarship on writing labs, we posit that the physi-


3/28

141


cal spaces o the labsthe layout as well as the urniture and hardwarea ect the relationships and work scenarios that take place within them.

This article documents some ways the physical and material space o the Department o Englishs computer lab at Utah State University (USU)

changed over 15+ years, and how these change a ected student col-laboration, especially when ways o collaborating changed a ter the May2007 remodel. Although many o us in the department had been teachingwriting as a collaborative activity or some time, we were not supportingstudent collaborations outside the classroom in the technological spacewithin the departments control, in part because that space had no peda-gogical or administrative leadership. Our open-access computer lab wasdesigned in a way that rein orced many students perceptions that writ-ing is an isolated, solitary event. The lab used individual desktop writingstations and discouraged talking through signage and lab consultants po-licing. Most students would work hunched over their computers in uncom-ortable chairs, speak to no one, and make as little noise as possible. Evenlab consultantsstudent workers paid to interact with and help users o the labwere themselves role models o isolation: They separated them-selves through the use o headphones, mobile phones, and an isolatedcomputer station.

Yet we knew that creating a space that re ects USUs philosophy o writ-ing is critical, especially i users o the space are able to be mobile and transient(Harrison, Wheeler, & Whitehead, 2004, p. 23). Many computer lab users mayenter the lab only a ew times during the one semester o their college careerswhen they take a mandatory English course. These sporadic computer labencounters can shape students perceptions o writing or the rest o their lives.As o ten as we tell students that good writing is collaborative, they will likely be-

lieve it more when they see it rein orced in the thought ul design o the work-spaces we have under our control. 1 All areas o English Studies can potentiallybene t rom such care ully designed computer labs, particularly as teachersacross the discipline incorporate more digital and multimodal assignments. 2 Although these areas have di erent oci and, at times, di erent pedagogical

1 We understand that we speak rom a privileged position when we re er to the classroomsunder our control. Many English departments do not retain control o the technologicalspaces in which students work. We address this situation later.

2 USUs Department o English, or example, houses multiple areas under the umbrella o undergraduate English (the primary user-population o the open lab), including Ameri-can studies, British & commonwealth studies, creative writing, English education, olklore,literary studies, pro essional & technical writing, and medieval and early modern studies.In addition, graduate students take classes in literature, pro essional communication,olklore, and American studies.


4/28

142


goals, one commonality remains: collaboration. For example, creative writingincorporates a great deal o workshopping into their classes, and literatureclasses involve a great deal o discussion and peer review o their analyses.Hence, creating a lab that supports collaboration is an attempt to support each

area o English Studies as well as to spread the idea across campus (via rst-yearcomposition students) that writing is social.

As technology becomes more ubiquitous and less expensive, it be-comes even more critical that we make knowledgeable decisions insteado educated guesses about pedagogical needs in lab settings. For instance,in The Inertia o Classroom Furniture, Ruth Mirtz (2004) discussed how thedesign o classroom urniture a ected students during peer review ses-sions in rst-year composition classes. She made three recommendationsor designing classroom spaces:

The physical environment should not determine the relation-ships among teachers and students or among ideas and reality;

Relationships should remain in fux and nimble, able to refectmore than the will o the teacher or the will o a ew students;and

Teachers and students should be pushed to think past thetraditional or the nontraditional, to get away rom static arrange-ments and static learning, and to rethink classroom space asmore than mental space. (p. 26)

Simply put, Mirtz urged us to take control over the classroom space bybeing conscious o it and how we relate to it. Moreover, as Richard Lanham(2006) suggested, these spaces are the material mani estations o how wethink about the writing that they will do within them (p. 18). That is, the

physical spaces we design or students to work in say a lot about whatwe think o the activities that take place within them. That being said, wewant to call attention to the reality that most English departments do nothave control over the ultimate design o most spaces in which we teach.In these instances, we do what we can to better approximate pedagogicalchoices through classroom design and through negotiation with thosewho do control those spaces.

With these ideas in mind, we conducted a small-scale research studyo an open-access computer lab, designed over the 20062007 academicyear and remodeled in May 2007. Our goal in the redesign was to createan environment intended to support and encourage collaboration. In thisstudy, we wanted to observe how students would collaborate di erentlywhen using laptops versus desktops and when working in di erent seating


5/28

143


con gurations. We analyzed students perceptions o the lab according tothree characteristics o collaboration as posited by Harrison, Wheeler, andWhitehead (2004): ormality, presence, and con dentiality. We hoped todiscover whether the lab spaces we designed would support these di -

erent con gurations o student collaboration. Our ndings, while limitedin generalizability, indicate that the newly remodeled space is easier orstudents to use in collaborative ways such as working in collocated groups.In addition, students agreed that the material a ordances o the room(Barnum, 2002, p. 109) acilitated collaboration well. In this case, these a -ordances include the layout o the urniture, the available equipment, themobility o that equipment, the ambiance o the space, and the activitiesthose items allow.

In an e ort to explain the labs history and the rationale behind theredesign that prompted this study, we rst discuss the labs history asan example o praxis supported by the literature on networked writingclassrooms and workspace design. Next, we discuss the methodology,ndings, and implications o this study with regard to the design and useo technologically enhanced instructional spaces in which collaboration isencouraged. In the end, we suggest that mobile, recon gurable models orwriting labs might better support collaboration than do the more tradi-tional models that include static, individual workstations.

A Historic Look at Lab Designs and theUSU Department of English Lab The paradigm shi t rom product- to process-oriented theories o writinghappily coincided with the distribution o an a ordable microcomputerby Macintosh and was soon ollowed by a plethora o personal computing

plat orm choices or the consumer (Hawisher, et al., 1996, p. 74). For themost part, composition instructors were enthusiastic about the inclusiono computers in the writing process and research in the area mirrored thisenthusiasm, evolving into special interest groups and journals. Duringthe introduction o computers into the writing classroom, teachers o tenchose the speci c technologies they used in their teaching accordingto their individual pre erences and goals. Scholarly articles at the timeproduced many widely di ering, yet pedagogically based, arguments orparticular so tware or technologies (Hawisher et al., 1996, p. 110). By 1989,these scholarly discussions began to examine the economics o computeruse; speci cally, these discussions question the investments in the timeand money needed or teachers to learn each technology and to teachthese technologies to students, investments that o ten inter ered with the


6/28

144


actual pedagogical goals o a writing course (p. 200). According to Hawish-er et al. (1996), computers were o ten introduced into classrooms withoutrst considering the pedagogical implications o the technology or thedesign o the space, providing teachers with classrooms that were more

o a hindrance than an aid (p. 202). However, one noticeable way teach-ers began to gain pedagogical control over these spaces could be seen inshi ting urniture layouts. What ollows is a discussion o the three primarylayoutsrows, pods, and circlesused and modi ed since computerswere introduced to writing classrooms.

Networked Writing in Rows, Pods, and CirclesCarolyn Handa (1993) discussed two layoutsrows and podsas demon-

strating elements o both teacher-centered ideologies and student-cen-tered ideologies. Rows exhibit slightly more teacher-centered elements,involving a xed teacher station (usually at the ront o the room) andcomputers lined up in rows, whether acing the teacher station or perpen-dicular to it. This type o layout avors hierarchical teaching styles (p. 106)and rein orces the sage on the stage style o teaching in which pro essorsstand at a lectern and transmit knowledge o a topic to students. Gordon Thomas (1993) re erred to this teacher-centered design as a lab designastatement that carries with it the implication o medical experimentationand that invokes the visual or writing scholars o rows o computersin-stead o a classroom design. Meredith Zoetewey (2004) indicated that thename o a room serves as a metaphor or the rooms unction (i.e., lab ver-sus classroom). Even something as seemingly benign as the arrangemento the room or its name can a ect student perceptions o the activities thattake place in the space.

The pod layout demonstrates slightly more student-centered elements bylocating the instructor station among the students stations, serving to dissipatesome o the hierarchy between teacher and student. The student computersare arranged in pods (desks arranged in multiple, small inward- acing circles)around the room, similar to the bullpen style discussed by Boiarsky (1990)and Hawisher and Pemberton (1993). Handa (1993) argued that pods encour-age student interaction and a teacher-as-writer atmosphere. The logic goessomething like this: Because students ace one another, a greater chance exists

that they will con er with one another throughout the class time, and becauseteachers do not have a physically separated station, the pod design placesthem quite literally at the same level as students. O course, the pod layout isnot a utopian ideal. The computers, unless they are mounted low enough in thepods or users to see over, can create line-o -sight problems during large-group


7/28

145


discussions (Handa, 1993). Depending on the con guration, teachers canhave students move their chairs into the center o the room or discussion, theunintended result o which would be to render the computers useless duringdiscussion.

In addition to rows and pods, the circle is another common networked-classroom layout. The circle layout arranges computers around the perimetero the room acing the outside walls. This layout leaves the center o the roomopen or a large con erence table or space or class discussion. The circle layoutincorporates elements o both teacher-centered pedagogies and student-centered pedagogies: The teacher may still command students attention roman instructors station, but class discussion is also easily acilitated by bringingstudents together in the center o the room. However, when working on thecomputers, students ace a wall as they write and might easily interact onlywith the one or two people beside them. The net e ect o turning away romthe rest o the class to write is that students essentially cut themselves o romthe rest o the class (Palmquist, Kie er, Hartvigsen, & Godlew, 1998).

USU Department o English Lab Designs

The Department o English at USU has independently supported at least onecomputer lab since the early 1990s, when it was established through stateunding and student ees. Since then, aculty members who teach in the labhave held periodic discussions to reevaluate how the material a ordances o the lab a ect the teaching and learning taking place within it. The rst ewlayouts were, like many early university writing labs, designed to protect thecomputers. The Department o English computer lab rst used a layout thatincluded rows with computers acing the ront o the room. This layout did notlast long, however. Facilitators became concerned that students backpacks

would snag wires on the back o the computers (which were open to the ronto the room) and pull the computers o the desks. They moved the computersinto a U-shape around the outside o the room (a circle layout), so that the wireswere more contained. These decisions were based mainly on a need to secureand protect the technology, not on student needs or the pedagogical goals o the instructors who taught in the lab. Later, the lab was moved rom the topoor o the departments building into the basement and divided into tworooms, a networked classroom and an open-access lab. Because both rooms

were smaller than the original space, the computer workstations were arrangedin peninsulas, a variation that combined rows and pods. The desks were ar-ranged in rows with a pod at the end o each row. The pods jutted out into theroom, creating little islands o students. Although collaboration was possiblein this peninsular layout, it was o ten impossible or teachers to work their way


8/28

146


to students in secluded parts o the room. By all 2004, when two o us werehired, these space and layout problems mani ested in gymnastic maneuversover book bags and around occupied chairs to reach students. The problemsalso mani ested in student evaluations, which noted that the teacher ignored

certain groups o studentsan accurate perception regardless that it was thelayout that prevented the teacher rom reaching them, not the teachers will ulignorance o them. There were simply too many computers in either room withtoo little space, despite small class sizes.

During the 20042005 winter break, the urniture in the classroom wasrearranged once again into a circular arrangement. Still in close quarters,the circle was better than tripping over students or, as o ten happened,invading their personal space to help them or the person next to them.

The open lab used a circle layout with one large peninsula in the middle,arranged around a long-de unct partition closet. The lab consultants wouldsit at this peninsula, positioning themselves in the center o the lab. Theclassroom was not the ocus o our lab redesign nor is it the ocus o thisusability study. We mention it here because its small size, limited so tware, 3 and limited availability outside scheduled class times prompted two o usto write a university grant (discussed later) to redesign the open lab into acollaborative, mobile working environment. This redesign would providestudents with better access to the technologies they needed to completewriting assignments and an environment that would better support the col-laborative projects. For example, students rom the undergraduate programin pro essional and technical writing are assessed, in part, on their ability todemonstrate success ul collaboration across several projects in their pro es-sional port olios (see Cargile Cook, 2002).

The open lab is signi cantly larger than the classroom. At the start o

2006, it contained 28 six-year-old desktop computers with small CRT moni-torsmachines woe ully inadequate to handle so tware upgrades to matchthe so tware teachers were using in the accompanying classroom space(e.g., Adobe creative suite ). Although pro essional writing students were atthe high-end o the technological spectrum among student users, boththe classroom and the open lab had to attend to all students who enrolledin computer- ee-bearing courses, including approximately 75 sections o rst-year composition, nine sections o pro essional and technical writing,

two sections o grammar, and the occasional literature course, and a ewcreative writing and English as a Second Language courses. Between the

3 Prior to 2005, only hal the machines in the classroom had the so tware required orclasses that met in it, and the open lab had incompatibly old versions o the same or, insome cases, similar so tware on the computers.


9/28

147


classroom and the open lab, the departmental computer suite serves over1,900 students a semester.

During spring 2006, the department secured 25 two-year-old computerswith at-panel monitors and 50 ergonomic chairs rom another lab on cam-

pus.4

We moved the our-year-old machines, which also had at-panel moni-tors, rom the classroom to the open lab (replacing the six-year-old machines,which went to grad students and to surplus) and used the newer machines inthe classroom. The at-panel monitors took up less desk space than the CRTs,which helped us better accommodate the circle-and-peninsula arrangementin the open lab while retaining the same number o machines to accommo-date the larger classes that occasionally met there (see Figure 1). Although thistechnology upgrade proved e ective enough or basic writing tasks, it did notpromote the best practices o collaboration or writing pedagogy in a more gen-eral sense. As a result o the various constraints, 5 the lab was not designed withteachers or students best practices in mind. In act, students primarily used thelab to print the writing they dra ted in other labs across campus. (A $30 lab eecovered printing.)

The Suite LabDuring summer 2006, department and college administrators asked two o

us to write an internal grant proposal that would secure monies to supportteaching in the department. We wrote the grant proposal with a completeredesign o the open-access lab in mind, hoping that such a redesign wouldprompt more collaboration among students and aculty across the depart-ment. We hoped that we would be able to argue or more money to redesignthe teaching space as well. When we received $83,500 to redesign the SuiteLab,6 we ocused our attention on creating a mobile, recon gurable space4 Readers may notice that we are glossing over how we acquired more equipment, urniture,

and better so tware between all 2004 and the beginning o the remodel in all 2006. Thisin ux was due, in large part, to the changing technological ecology o the department,as evidenced by the hiring o two o the authors, both computers-and-writing scholars.For more discussion about these changes and how we were able to bring them about in adepartment that had been rather technologically static or many years, please see Moeller,Cargile Cook, and Ball (2009) in Technological Ecologies and Sustainability .

5 Various constraints that a ect any person tasked to maintain or upgrade a lab randomlyinclude square ootage, acilities issues (e.g., locations o doors, windows, electrical outlets,partition closets, and network ports), class scheduling, enrollment, and o course, nancialconsiderations, which necessitated the use o nonergonomic tables and chairs purchasedthrough university surplus until the open lab was remodeled in 2007.

6 The original name or the lab was The Learning Suite because our plan was to include a suiteo roomsboth large and smallwhere students could work. The small rooms would serveas studio spaces where students could work on extended projects throughout a semester.We quickly realized that to get the internal grant, we had to make do with the space we hadin the open lab in which the studio space became a single workstation (with the MacPro)


10/28

148


aspects lacking in prior layouts o the room. We also secured money or a PhDstudentour third authorto serve as the assistant director o the lab, taskedwith many responsibilities, primarily training the lab consultants, assessing theredesign outcomes, and seeking additional unding opportunities.

The lab redesign is mobile inso ar as it acilitates impromptu rearrange-ments o laptop computers and urniture or collaborative group work andeasier group discussions where students can ace one another and custom-ize the workspaces according to needs. When writing scholars talk about thedesign o computer writing labs, lab mobility is o ten discussed, but generallyand mainly in terms o teachers ability to physically reach students or stu-dents ability to get up and con er with others easily (Hawisher & Pember-ton, 1993, p. 47). In our idealized mobile environment, we wanted studentsto be able to work in various places and ways and to position workstationsin multiple ways to maintain proximity to their collaborators as well as to

until we could get more money and more space. The Suite name became somewhat met-onymic, signi ying the global plan, and we liked the nod to Adobes creative suite , becauseit was also our intention that the lab would provide a space or teachers to in use moremultimedia into their curricula through access to the so tware. We also liked the cool actorin the connotation that the lab was a sweet place to work.

Figure 1. Before image of the open computer lab. Notice the industrial aesthetic. Theproximity and orientation of computers (not to mention the towers) encouraged us-ers to construct personal boundaries around their workspaces.


11/28

149


ensure personal com ort. This mobility would also allow or varying peda-gogical needs o numerous instructors. We chose a combination o 15 laptopcomputers and 11 desktop computers to acilitate ace-to- ace collaborationsas well as individual work and distributed collaborations. Our lab redesign,

overall, is based on the theory that giving students the ability to create andadapt their technological spaces will help them work collaboratively in waysthat meet their needs, including when they are meeting in the lab outsideclass time. In terms o pedagogy, instructors can reinvent the layout o theroom according to their teaching styles and class needs. Considering themyriad constituencies and pedagogies in English Studies, such exibility intechnology and learning is crucial. For example, instructors who avor classdiscussions can move urniture into a central con erence area. Instructorswho want students to work on a project individually can o er them separatework areas through di erent urniture con gurations. In short, by combiningmobile laptop technologies, desktop computer pods, and mobile urniture,we hoped to acilitate greater collaboration among writing students as wellas allow or multiple pedagogical goals.

The redesign o the Suite Lab included the ollowing design consider-ations:

26 brand new computers: 15 wireless laptops (13.3" MacBooks), 10midrange desktops (24 " iMacs), and 1 high-end desktop (MacProwith 23" monitor) 7;

mobile chair and couch combinations with small side tables or lap-top use (see Figures 2 & 3);

two pods o desktops with ergonomic task chairs (see Figure 4); two individual, stand-up stations, each with a desktop, positioned by

the door or quick print-and-go unctionality; and one open-backed cubicle or high-end multimedia work.

Because the print-and-go stations and the multimedia workstations were notdesigned with collaborative use as their primary unction, we will ocus the resto this article on the laptop and pod desktop areas.7 We discussed the plat orm decision with various lab stakeholders including teachers,

pro essional writing students, systems administrators, and computer sales representa-tives or many months. We chose Macs or the ollowing reasons: (a) They would operateon either Windows or Mac operating systems, accommodating most o our stakeholderspre erences at the time; (b) our college systems administrator had recently hired a Macsupport person, meaning that knowledgeable technical personnel were already in place;(c) Macs did not required any additional hardware (i.e., servers or network cabling) be-cause they could run on the Windows servers the college had and could use the wirelessnetworks already in place; and (d) Apple had the best bid proposal and most help ul andresponsive sales representative.


12/28

150


Using wireless laptops reduced the number o stationary desktops anddesks we needed to acilitate a more exible and collaborative workspaceenvironment. Students would be ree to position the laptops and armlesschairs in any way they chose, allowing them to see their group members betterand or their group members to see each others work better. In addition, weattempted to design a com ortable space where students would want to work,and as more students began to work in the space, we hoped more collabora-

Figure 2. One of the study-participant groups working in a mobile seating area with laptops.

Figure 3. Desktop group (foreground) and second laptop group (background) duringthe usability-collaboration study.


13/28

151


tionboth ad hoc and plannedwould result. In the two years since the labwas redesigned, we have seen some positive results. Instructors have asked tobe reassigned to the Suite Lab to teach instead o the computer classroom. Ad-ditionally, many students have begun to check out the laptops or use in their

classes next door.We have begun to think o the redesign as a success, at least in terms o

the eedback we received rom users. However, this article is our rst stepat ormally studying the mobile aspects o the lab, which turned out to bequite a surprise or students. They did not expect to be allowed to recon g-ure urniture or to talk and work together in the lab. The next section out-lines the collaborative -usability study we per ormed by observing studentsworking on a group project in the lab to determine the extent to whichthe material eatures o the lab a orded or constrained their collaborativee orts. Ultimately, our research points to the use o laptops as particularlyconducive to collaborative activities, especially o their mobility.

Methods Used for Studying Collaborationbetween Laptop and Desktop UsersAt the time o this writing, students have been using the Suite Lab or our

semesters. To determine how well the lab space ul lls its collaborative mission,we conducted a usability study o the space during the 20072008 academicyear, in e ect, gauging students ability to use the space collaboratively. In thisstudy, we observed three groups o studentstwo working with laptop com-puters and one with desktops. The participants o the study worked on a collab-orative document design assignment typical or introductory pro essional andtechnical writing majors. Participants were selected rom an undergraduateintroductory technical communication course taught by one o us. Participants

volunteered to be a part o the study, and no penalty was given or those whochose not to participate. Ten students participated in the study: three malesand seven emales. 8 On the day o the study, students were randomly placedin groups as they entered the labthe rst student was in the rst group,the second was in the second group, and so on, until the three groups wereormed. We ormed the groups in this way so students would not orm groupswith students they were amiliar with, which might in turn a ect the way theycollaborate. (For example, many students in rst-year composition do not knowtheir classmates well. We hoped to mimic that environment in this way.) Ourstudy included a pretest questionnaire, a task scenario, and a posttest question-naire (included in the Appendix). We collected data or analysis by videotapingthe test and analyzing the posttest questionnaires.8 This ratio re ects the typical enrollment by gender in our pro essional writing courses.


14/28

152


The pretest questionnaires collected demographic data as well as dataabout participants computer experience. Participant groups containedboth traditional and nontraditional students, an inclusion we elt impor-tant because it included two substantial student groups as representative

o USUs student body. The task-scenario consisted o a typical class as-signment or third-year pro essional and technical writing classes at USU.Students were allowed 50 minutes (equivalent to one MWF class period) tocomplete it. The assignment asked students to work in groups o three orour to collaborate on an e ective document design or a ctional tour-ist companys billboard. The students were required to research imagesand use Adobe indesign and photoshop to create their designs. Immediatelyollowing the test, students were given a posttest questionnaire in whichthey reported on their experiences during the task. The questionnaireasked students how they elt about the experience in general, how theyused the space, and how they would improve the space to make it moreusable or group work. To measure the collaborative usability o the space,we analyzed students use o the space on videotape in conjunction withresponses rom the posttest questionnaire.

Our analysis largely ocused on how participants physically used thespace during the test. We wanted to see them move urniture around,share documents and computers, and use the space or collaboratingcom ortably and productively. We ocused our analysis o the videotapeddata on what participants mentioned in the posttest questionnaires. Forexample, some participants noted that they had to crane their necks toshare a desktop computer. Hence, we reviewed the data to see how manystudents in a group used computers, how close students sat to one anoth-er, and who appeared to do most o the work on the computer.

Findings: Usability of the Space to Support CollaborationOur major ndings tend to support our theory that giving students the abilityto create and adapt their technological spaces will help them work in collabora-tive ways in a typical classroom writing scenario. The participants who usedthe laptop computers reported success ul collaboration. Despite their positivereports, we were disappointed that none o the participants who used the lap-top computers moved any o the urniture to accommodate their group work.

Participants working at the desktop computers moved their chairs aroundto all work on one computer, but none o the groups used a course manage-ment system or a network drive to share documents. Each group worked on asingle document either together or they passed it around by emailing it to oneanother. Later, we discuss participants responses to how the physical layout o


15/28

153


the lab and the technology supported their work. Then, we discuss the mobilityconstraints o the space and participant reactions to those constraints. Finally,we discuss how participants perceived the atmosphere o the room and theirability to collaborate in a public lab space.

Students Responses to the Redesign The primary issues uncovered in this usability test involved inefcient urniturecon guration and insufcient desk space. Although 7 o the 10 participantsindicated that the workspace was adequate, the same number said that achange in physical layout o the urniture would help improve collaboration inthe space. Our observations revealed that users never attempted to change thecon guration o seating during the testing and that several participants elt a

little uncom ortable collaborating in the space. We interpreted this discom ortas students acceptance o computer lab ideologies presented by labs thatdiscourage talking, working together, moving urniture, or making any changesto the atmosphere o the space.

Immediately a ter opening the redesigned lab, we realized the extent towhich students had adopted this computer lab ideology that con icted withthe Suite Lab. Most obviously, we saw evidence o this ideology as studentswould enter the lab, look around with con used looks, only to leave a momentlater. When we were able to catch them be ore they le t, they would mostcommonly say that they were not sure that the Suite Lab was a computer labdespite the 11 desktop computers scattered around the roombecause it didnot look or eel like a lab. We have tried to remedy this situation with more obvi-ous placement o signs, particularly signs indicating how to check out laptops.Additionally, we trained lab consultants to approach everyone who enters theroom, according to best practices in consumer relations, i not security protocol.

Other student concerns ocused on the proximity o desktop computersto one another; students wanted more personal space on the tables or theirbooks and papers. We largely resolved this issue by placing two computersacross rom each other on each table instead o placing our computers oneach table. We purchased additional desks to place around the perimeter o the room, creating more spaces or students to work. With more desk space,students can sit together at desktop computers to work.

We were surprised to nd that many students resisted the lab redesign

altogether. These students bypassed talking to us and instead wrote let-ters to the university president, dean, and department head (all o whomre erred the students back to us with their support). They also initiated stu-dent newspaper investigations into our use o student monies to remodelthe space. We were stunned by this response, having surveyed student lab


16/28

154


users be ore the remodel or their eedback, meeting with several o thesestudents to alleviate their concerns. The most common concern was thatstudents do not want expensive, com ortable places to work. They justwant computers to work on and lower tuition and ees (author Amanda

Bemers recollection o personal correspondence). Because the monies orthe remodel came rom internal research unds, we were able to alleviatetheir concerns regarding increased tuition and ees; however, we werereminded that students will keep us accountable or our designs o thespaces they use.

Study Participants Responses to Collaborating in theRedesigned Space

In our test, hal the laptop users indicated that the laptops with wireless con-nections were help ul or collaboration. Other laptop users elt that the laptopswere, at times, a distraction or collaboration and even promoted individualwork instead. Laptop users commented, I think all three o us were doing ourown thing because we had laptops; We all sort o did our own thing, so itdidnt really contribute to the team e ort; and Sometimes the laptops were adistraction. Laptop users did not synchronously share documents; they dividedup the work into individual chunks they could share over email. Although col-laborating, they resisted re erring to their work as collaborative because theywere not looking over each others shoulders. These comments might be moreindicative o how students think about collaboration than how they actuallycollaborate. Despite their lack o enthusiasm toward the laptops themselves, allparticipants using laptops either strongly agreed or agreed that the lab spacewas a good space or collaboration. One student ound the laptops particu-larly help ul, noting that we were all able to see each other and share our work

without having to move around. Another stated that just using the laptopsand sitting on the chairs made it easy to discuss. Yet another mentioned thatthere was lots o space and it was com y in the lab. One noted that the mobil-ity o the computers allowed them to sit closely and easily see one computer.Overall, the laptop groups completed more o the project than the desktopgroup. One individual rom the desktop group asked or more time to completetheir project. Although the laptop groups might have achieved more efcientcollaboration, we hesitate to say their collaboration was more e ective because

the quality o work completed by all three groups was comparable at the endo the test. It is interesting to note, however, that the desktop group elt thattheir project was less nished than the other groups did.

Despite concerns about the physical con guration o the space, all partici-pants indicated that the Suite Lab was a pleasant place to collaborate. Some


17/28

155


users were concerned that their talking might disturb others using the space.When asked whether they were likely bring a group o students to the lab tocollaborate on a project, one participant responded, I worry that I am disturb-ing other students by talking. This response could indicate several di erent per-

ceptions about working in a computer lab: (a) this participant has internalizedthe computer lab ideology that computer labs are designed or independent,solitary work; (b) the Suite Lab does not a ord its users the perception thatconversations are productive; or (c) this participant is simply concerned aboutbothering those hard at work around her. Interestingly, none o the participantsused the networked capabilities o the computers to work on the project silent-ly. Participants might have shared a Google Document, worked on a documentin the course management system (Blackboard Vista), or used a network driveor external hard drive to share the document. This choice is an interesting issueo perception that we discuss later. No other issues were voiced concerninglighting, temperature, color, or other environmental elements. Overall, partici-pants elt the Suite Lab was a pleasant place to work.

Finally, we worried that the large size o the desktop monitors (24) mightmake it difcult or desktop users using multiple desktop stations to collaboratewith one another ace-to- ace. But the test results revealed quite the oppositeproblem. Several users indicated that collaboration was physically difcult orgroup members to crowd around a single desktop at the same time. User com-ments included, We were very crammed around one computer and You cantsee each others computer screen very easily and have to move to see whatthe others are working on. Users did not have issue with seeing or hearing oneanother, not because they could see over the monitors, but because they didnot need to see over the monitors at all. The entire group o our participantsused one computer.

We discovered that participants determined the success o their collabora-tive experiences along a scale similar to that proposed by Harrison, Wheeler,and Whitehead (2004) in their book, The Distributed Workplace: Sustainable Work Environments . In that book, the authors discussed workplace con gurationsand how those spaces acilitate certain types o activities while simultane-ously constraining others. Speci cally, the participants in our study required abalance o three key actors that determined the success o their collaboration:ormality, presence, and con dentiality. Next, we discuss our ndings in more

detail using these three points o collaboration.

FormalityFormality describes the relationships and sets o established behaviorsthat students (or coworkers) share with one another. Greater ormality is


18/28

156


o ten employed in a workspace when group or team members see oneanother as acquaintances or coworkers rather than good riends, that is,when their relationship is less than intimate (Harrison, Wheeler, & White-head, 2004, p. 68). In a sense, ormality re ers to the unwritten rules o be-

havior that guide peoples actions in a group or workplace environment. Agood example o ormality is evidenced when people establish boundariesor personal spaces or themselves. Formal salutations and names establishdistance and ormality while rst names or nicknames and touching lessenormality signi cantly. Participants were pleased with the level o ormalitya orded by the spaces designed or collaborating via laptop computers.When working synchronously or ace-to- ace, the laptops and couch-seat-ing area allowed participants to control their boundaries, there ore o er-ing them control over the level o ormality within their groups to a similardegree. This control is possible because each student had an individualscreen and could sit as ar apart (or close together, as one participant not-ed) as they chose. Participants did not experience this level o control overormality and space while working at the pod-desktop space, however.

One obvious di erence in boundaries between the desktop and laptopgroups concerns personal space or touching. In the laptop groups, studentsseemed very care ul not to touch one another during the task. In the desktopgroup, participants were not as care ul. During the task, one student leanedorward to gesture toward the screen and the student in ront o him visiblyrecoiled, indicating an invasion o personal space or unexpected touching.Besides physical reactions, we noticed participants dislike o the lack o or-mality in the desktop space through their use o negative language about itsboundaries. One participant noted that we were very crammed around onecomputer otherwise there would be no way or all o us to see what we were

creating. The limited desktop space combined with the airly tall and obtru-sive desktop computers orced participants to invade what they elt to be oneanothers boundaries to collaborate around one computer. However, urtherreview o the video data shows that desktop group participants were not sittingany closer to one another than the laptop participants were. Because the desk-top group could not choose how closely they sat rom each other, they elt as i they were sitting closer than they actually were, demonstrating an interestingtwist o perception. The desktop group decided to drop their level o ormality

and share the space around one computer even though our desktop comput-ers were arranged around one pod, and participants could have shared theirwork electronically over email, network drives, or other means. Participantsdiscussed the desktop computer as an individualized workspace. A ter work-ing in the desktop group, one student explained that while returning to the lab


19/28

157


or collaborative work wasnt likely. However, the students liked the space orindividual work, noting that the computers were arranged in a way that wasmore conducive to individual work.

In contrast, because the laptop groups perceived that they had more

control over physical boundaries, participants maintained a higher levelo ormality over the space and work. Participants in the laptop groupstended to use one laptop per participant and did not have to crowd oneanother or screen viewing, an act that allowed them to maintain spatialboundaries. In act, as we mentioned previously, one user noted the abilityto sit closely with her group as a positive attribute, in direct contrast to theeelings o boundaries associated with the desktop-pod group. Also, lap-tops allowed or documents to be more technologically mobile. Becauseeach participant was working on a di erent computer at the same time,they chose to share their work digitally by emailing documents back andorth. The act o email, because it creates a tangible record o an exchangeo in ormation, is more ormal than sharing documents in other ways suchas with a ash drive. During our study, participants who collaborated vialaptop computers contributed more o ten to the creation and revision o the documents on which they were working; they searched or imagesand made adaptations to design instead o merely suggesting changes, asmost members o the desktop group did. Although suggesting changesis certainly a valid part o collaborative activity, students in the desktopgroup stated that they had trouble physically seeing one another, thoughthey remedied this somewhat by cramming themselves around one com-puter. Hence, they elt that others were not participating as much becausethey could not physically see this participation. In the laptop groups, theormal record o communication (email) created a tangible method with

which to de ne presence.

PresencePresence re ers to group members recognition that other group mem-bers are actively contributing to the work at hand (Harrison, Wheeler, &Whitehead, 2004, p. 68). Because the participants in our study were col-located, they de ned presence by actual, physical contributions made tothe document. Because o this dynamic, the desktop group was hesitant

to recognize vocal contributions made while everyone was looking at thesame computer as actual contributions. So despite their obvious physicalpresence to one another, they measured presence through tangible, mate-rial input to the document. The laptop groups did not have this problembecause they divided up the work, taking advantage o their collocation,


20/28

158


and they knew every group member was going to contribute to the actualdocument. Additionally, because the desktop group was working in suchclose proximity to one another, when one participant removed hersel rom the group to work on the document individually or a short time, she

was seen as removing hersel rom the groups presence.In comparison, laptop participants in our study reported being able

to easily see and converse within their group. This presence was demon-strable by tangible contributions that participants using laptops made tothe shared document (e.g., searching or and nding image les online touse in a document). This participation was easily observable on the videoo the task. Participants using the desktop computers were orced to physi-cally remove themselves rom the group and walk to a di erent computerto e ect the same contributions. Participants discussed such a removal asa barrier to success ul collaboration, stating that [we couldnt] see eachothers computer screens very easily and [had] to move to see what theothers [were] working on. Because the participants who worked on thedesktops elected to have one primary contributor with several support-ing collaborators, de ned by who controlled input at the computer, somegroup members elt that the other group members contributed less tothe overall results o the document, though they added input vocally. Thisvocal input is somewhat intangible in comparison to the physical inputo the person sitting at the computer. This lack o tangibility might be thereason some students elt that those who were not sitting at the computerphysically were participating less, although they were certainly activeparticipants in the group through their vocal input. As writing teachers, wevalued this type o input and saw it as demonstrating presence, althoughthe participants did not.

ConfdentialityCon dentiality re ers to the sense that one can keep ones work privateand has a choice as to when to reveal it (Harrison, Wheeler, & Whitehead,2004, p. 68). Participants using the laptop computers had more controlover when to reveal their work to their group members. Instead o sharingtheir entire search process or an appropriate image, or example, they onlyshared the results o their search with the rest o the group. We did not

observe this same level o control among the desktop users, who crowdedaround one another and were constantly aware o the work the primarycontributor was doing. For example, members o the desktop groupall went through each image that came up in a search, an act that mayexplain why they, according to their sel -assessment, did not complete


21/28

159


as much o the assignment as the laptop groups. In the desktop group,because o the sheer number o eyes looking at each image, students weremore likely to comment on particular images they ound amusing or in-teresting, whether relevant or not (mostly not); this commenting process,

although it appeared enjoyable, caused the desktop group to take moretime to complete the task than the laptop groups. O course, the laptopgroups also participated in this play ul activity, but less so, perhaps be-cause they each had their own images to look at.

Con dentiality is particularly important to the writing process becausestudents o ten eel insecure about revealing work they do not eel is per ector nished, particularly when they nd themselves in a airly un amiliar spaceat the beginning o a writing class and do not know other students enoughto eel com ortable sharing un nished work. This insecurity can be seen in theway that, as observed in the video, no one in the desktop group seemed overlyeager to take on the role o group leader (e.g., the person in charge o creatingthe document itsel on the computer). The desktop group took several moreminutes to get started than the laptop groups did. This delay and lack o desiremay be due to insecurities about others watching group members work as theactive person in charge o input on the computer.

Findings SummaryWe ound that a level o ormality, presence, and con dentiality wasa orded by the laptop computers. Students seemed to appreciate thisa ordance because it helped them eel more com ortable with their col-laboration. However, the inclusion o desktop computers is still necessaryin a computer lab because students o ten work individually and collabo-rate virtually. To be success ul collaborators, participants needed to control

several aspects o their group work, speci cally the ormality or the levelo amiliarity, or rituals shared among themselves and their collabora-tors. They needed to physically contribute to the document to be seen bygroup members as contributing productively to the group e ort. They alsoneeded to maintain a certain amount o con dentiality over their work. These areas o control are all elements o success ul collaborative work-places that can be supported in key ways by the design o workspaces.Students desire amiliarity, con dentiality, and presence, and they will

take the a ordances o a technology (such as a laptop) and shape it intothe closest approximation o a boundary. By designing mobile, collabora-tive learning spaces, we can better accommodate students individual andgroup writing processes in order to make those processes more visibleand learnable or students in ways that support the disciplinary philoso-


22/28

160


phies that writing is not a solitary endeavor. Using laptops to help groupsestablish appropriate levels o ormality and presence might help dissolvethe perception o a group leader (i.e., the one sitting at the computer) whodoes the majority o the groups physical work. Giving students the au-

thority to decide when to share their writing with their group or the classmight give them a greater sense o ownership tied to their work. It makessense that student writers would want to have control over their work bybeing able to per orm it themselves and decide who sees it and when.Our study suggests that the layout and technologies o any workspace willdetermine, to a certain degree, how students will or will not collaboratesuccess ully within it.

Although we ound that the laptop computers and the com ortable, couch-like environment better acilitate collaborative activities, the inclusion o desk-tops in a computer lab is still important. Because collaboration does not alwaysoccur when students are physically together, the desktops allow an individual-ized space or students to write or collaborate digitally. Computer lab users arenotably transient and unpredictable; not everyone in the lab at a given time iscollaborating on a project. Some users may be researching topics or papers,other students might be writing dra ts, and still others might be using emailor other communication tools. Designing a space that can be recon gured orindividual and collaborative work seems ideal.

Finally, as an important aside in our study, some participants noted andappreciated the larger size o desktop monitors during collaboration. A largemonitor is use ul in many situationswhen several people need to view ascreen at once, when users need to view the screen rom a distance, whenaccommodating low-vision users, or when users are working in multimediaprograms that require a large amount o screen real estate. Although our study

showed the laptop computers to be slightly more usable or collaborative work,the desktop computers (especially with large monitors) still have a place incomputer labs and classrooms.

Although the Suite Lab is designed with mobility in mind, participants didnot use the mobile aspects o most urniture. Based on comments rom post-test surveys, users were unaware they were allowed to recon gure urniturein the room to aid their group collaboration. For example, one student notedplainly that i one chair was acing the others instead o being in a straight line,

group work would have been easier. Seven out o the 10 participants expresseda desire to see speci c urniture recon gurations, but based on our observa-tions and video ootage, they made no e orts to enact these changes. A terdiscussing this observation with the participants, we discovered students wereunaware that they were allowed to move the urniture to suit their needs. As


23/28

161


we mentioned previously, the ideology o what constitutes a computer lab isat play here: (a) computer labs are or solitary writing; (b) you do not move theurniture in computer labs; and (c) the urniture is heavy and unmovable. Weare attempting to solve these myths by making urniture easier to move by

purchasing casters with wheels or the couch-like chairs. Also, we are hopingthe inclusion o signs suggesting di erent con gurations as well as periodicallyrepositioning urniture in the room may dispel these perceptions. In addition, inthe months a ter the study, as students used the space more, we have observedthem moving urniture more o ten. Increased amiliarity with the space has ledto a sense o ownership o the space; amiliarity has somewhat solved this prob-lem and allowed students to embrace the mobility o the space.

Conclusion This study revealed that the Suite Lab remodel was a success with respect tosome material a ordances o mobility in relation to collaborationthat is,laptops were more success ul than desktops in collaborative group work. Weare still battling some perceptions o what a computer lab is: Participants articu-lated the ideology that computer labs are institutional, solitary writing spaces,and this perception is difcult to dispel, no matter how dramatic our remodelmay have been. This perception was demonstrated by the study participantsperceived lack o ownership o the space and ear that they might disturb thework o others by collaborating in the space. In the Suite Lab, we are workingto dispel this myth. Since the study, users who come to the lab requently, bytwo authors observations, are much more likely to collaborate and speak reelyin the Suite Lab. First-time users, who can sometimes be identi ed by theirdifculty logging on to the lab computers, are much more likely to visit the labalone. Future lab surveys may help us determine who is using the lab and or

what purpose, particularly i they are using the lab collaboratively and withoutear o disturbing others. This research will help us gauge how perceptions arechanging and whether the perception shi t is due to amiliarity.

It is easy or us, as writing instructors, to teach students that writing is acollaborative processwe incorporate group work and peer review into ourclasses. It becomes much more difcult or us to show them that the writingprocess is collaborative by supporting it with speci c technologies (i.e., laptopcomputers) and spaces (i.e., the Suite Lab). This material support requires mon-

ey and control over a lab to design and out t. The Suite Lab is an example o anattempt to show students that the Department o English at USU views writingas a collaborative process. Our study indicates students may have preconceivednotions o computer labs that con ict directly with the idea that writing is acollaborative process. For the writing process, students like ormality, presence,


24/28

162


and con dentiality in their workplaces. These three characteristics require thatstudents have a level o control over their workspacesthey need to controltheir physical boundaries to be com ortable with their situation ( ormality); theyneed to be able to see other group members easily and see their active contri-

butions (presence); and they need to be able to control when others see theirwork (con dentiality). O course, in the open-access lab environment elementso in ormality come into play as well. During our study, students o ten bondedby sharing unny pictures they ound while searching the Internet or project-speci c images. The combination o the mobility o the laptops with the col-location o the research participants aided this in ormal sharing (students justmoved their screen so others could see it); and, o course, students with desk-tops could also share these elements, although they came across images all atonce as a group. These more play ul elements o collaboration, according toeedback rom participants, seem necessary or a collaborative experience thatstudents will want to experience again. The Suite Lab design allows or thesethree characteristics with the use o laptops and movable urniture. The users o the lab, however, have had to become com ortable with the lab and learn thespace to eel com ortable employing the movable aspects that make it suitableor collaboration. Theyve also had to decide that the lab is not necessarily aquiet space that denies speaking at levels required or conversation.

Pedagogically, we hope that the mobility o our lab environment helpsto support numerous members o our departmenteach o whom teachescourses with somewhat di erent goals. The inclusion o desktops and laptopshas allowed some o this reedom in a way we did not ully expect. This studyhas provided quantitative and qualitative data that shows students can uselaptops well or collaboration, but they also have a strong appreciation or desk-top computers. Understanding how students desire ormality, presence, and

con dentiality in their writing environments can help us to urther incorporatethese aspects into spacesperhaps through creating a space with di erentspaces within it, as we have done with the Suite Labs separate desktop andlaptop areas.

ReferencesBarnum, Carol M. (2002). Usability testing and research . New York: Longman.Boiarsky, Carolyn. (1990). Computers in the classroom: The instruction, the mess,

the noise, the writing. In Carolyn Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teach-ing composition in the twenty-frst century (pp. 4767). Portsmouth, NH: Boyn-ton/Cook.

Bowen, Betsy A. (1993). Using con erences to support the writing process. In AnnM. Penrose & Barbara M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive researchin the college writing classroom (pp. 188200). Ox ord: Ox ord University Press.


25/28

163


Bru ee, Kenneth A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation o man-kind. College English, 46(7), 635652.

Bru ee, Kenneth A. (1994). The art o collaborative learning: Making the most o knowledgeable peers. Change, 26 (3), 3944.

Burnett, Rebecca E. (1991). Substantive con ict in a cooperative context: A way toimprove the collaborative planning o workplace documents. Technical Com-munication, 38 (4), 532539.

Burnett, Rebecca E. (1993). Decision-making during the collaborative planning o coauthors. In Ann M. Penrose & Barbara M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think:Cognitive research in the college writing classroom (pp. 125146). Ox ord: Ox ordUniversity Press.

Cargile Cook, Kelli. (2002). Layered literacies: A theoretical rame or technical com-munication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11 (1), 529.

Clark, Irene L., & Healy, Dave. (1996). Are writing centers ethical? WPA: Writing Pro-gram Administration, 20 (12), 3248.Duin, Ann Hill. (1986). Implementing cooperative learning groups in the writing

curriculum. Journal o Teaching Writing, 5 , 315324.Flower, Linda; Wallace, David L.; Norris, Linda; & Burnett, Rebecca E. (Eds.). (1994).

Making thinking visible: Writing, collaborative planning, and classroom inquiry .Urbana, IL: National Council o Teachers o English.

Handa, Carolyn. (1993). Designing a computer classroom: Pedagogy, nuts, andbolts. In Linda J. Myers (Ed.), Approaches to computer writing classrooms: Learn-ing rom practical experience (pp. 103118). New York: SUNY Press.

Harris, Jeanette. (1994). Toward a working de nition o collaborative writing. InJames S. Leonard, Christine E. Wharton, Robert Murray Davis, & Jeanette Harris(Eds.), Author-ity and textuality: Current views o collaborative writing (pp. 7784).West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill Press.

Harris, Muriel. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration: Writ-ing center tutorials vs. peer-response groups. College Composition and Commu-nication, 43 (3), 369383.

Harrison, Andrew; Wheeler, Paul; & Whitehead, Carolyn. (2004). The distributed workplace: Sustainable work environments . London: Spon Press.

Hawisher, Gail E.; LeBlanc, Paul; Moran, Charles; & Sel e, Cynthia L. (1996). Comput-ers and the teaching o writing in American higher education, 19791994: A history .Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hawisher, Gail E., & Pemberton, Michael A. (1993). Integrating theory and ergo-nomics: Designing the electronic writing classroom. In Linda Myers (Ed.), Ap- proaches to computer writing classrooms: Learning rom practical experience (pp.3552). New York: SUNY Press.

Howard, Rebecca M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. In Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper,& Kurt Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 5470). New York:Ox ord University Press.

Lanham, Richard. (2006). The economics o attention: Style and substance in the ageo in ormation . Chicago: University o Chicago Press.


26/28

164


Luns ord, Andrea. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea o a writing center.The Writing Center Journal, 12 (1), 310.

Luns ord, Andrea, & Ede, Lisa S. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives oncollaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Mirtz, Ruth. (2004). The inertia o classroom urniture: Unsituating the classroom.In Ed Nagelhout & Carol Rutz (Eds.), Classroom spaces and writing instruction (pp.1328). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Moeller, Ryan; Cargile Cook, Kelli; & Ball, Cheryl E. (2009). Political economy andsustaining the unstable: New aculty and research in English studies. In Dni-elle DeVoss, Heidi McKee, & Richard J. Sel e (Eds.),Technological Ecologies and Sustainability . Retrieved August 9, 2009, rom http://ccdigitalpress.org/

Nagelhout, Ed, & Blalock, Glenn. (2004). Spaces or the activity o writing instruc-tion. In Ed Nagelhout & Carol Rutz (Eds.), Classroom spaces and writing instruc-

tion (pp. 133151). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Palmquist, Michael; Kie er, Kate; Hartvigsen, Jake; & Godlew, Barbara. (1998).Transitions: Teaching writing in computer-supported and traditional classrooms .Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Sel e, Richard J. (2005). Sustainable computer environments: Cultures o support or teachers o English and language arts . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sullivan, Patricia A. (1994). Revising the myth o the independent scholar. In SallyBarr Reagan, Thomas Fox, & David Bleich (Eds.), Writing with: New directionsin collaborative teaching, learning, and research (pp. 1130). Albany, NY: SUNY

Press. Thomas, Gordon. (1993). Students, teachers, computers, and architects: Design-

ing an open computer writing laboratory. In Linda Myers (Ed.), Approaches tocomputer writing classrooms: Learning rom practical experience (pp. 181198).New York: SUNY Press.

Thralls, Charlotte. (1992). Bakhtin, collaborative partners, and published discourse:A collaborative view o composing. In Janis Forman (Ed.), New visions o collab-orative writing (pp. 1936). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Winsor, Dorothy A. (1990). Engineering writing/writing engineering. College Com- position and Communication, 41 (1), 5870.

Zoetewey, Meredith. (2004). Disrupting the computer lab(oratory): Names, meta-phors, and the wireless writing classroom. Kairos: A Journal o Rhetoric, Technol-ogy, and Pedagogy, 9 (1). Retrieved January 25, 2009, rom http://kairos.tech-norhetoric.net/9.1/binder2.html?coverweb/zoetewey/index.html


27/28

165


AppendixPosttest Questionnaire

Question Answer

1. How many people were in your group?Number o members in your group _____________

2. Did your group collaborate around thecomputers or the couches?

Computers________ Couches _________

This space was a good space or collaboration (Circle one):

1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Why? __________________________________

3. Was there anyone in your group who

had a laptop with them?Yes_________ No__________

I Yes, How many o your group members had lap-tops?_______________

How do you eel this helped or detracted rom your group collaboration?_______________________________

4. Where did your group sit? Couches ______ Computers______ Other__________

5. Was there someone in your group wholed the collaboration?

Yes_______ No________

I yes, where did they sit? _______________________

6. Do you eel there was enough space inthe room or everyone in your group tocollaborate?

Yes_______ No________

7. Would you likely bring a group o students again to the lab to collaborateon a project?

Yes_______ No________

Why? __________________________________

8. Would a change in the setup o theroom enhance collaboration or yourgroup?

Yes _________ No___________

I yes, what would you change? ___________________

9. Would a change in the setup o theroom detract rom the collaboration oryour group?

Yes___________ No____________

I yes, what change? _________________________

10. Was the English lab a pleasant placeto collaborate? How was the lightingin the room? How com ortable was theenvironment in the lab?

Yes___________ No____________

Would you add or remove anything to make the room a more pleasantplace to collaborate?

______________________________________


28/28


Author In ormation

Amanda Metz Bemer is a PhD candidate in Pro essional Communication at Utah StateUniversity. She received her MA in Rhetoric, Composition, and Pro essional Communi-cation rom Iowa State University. Her research interests include the rhetoric o space,visual rhetoric, and technical communication. She has spent the last two and a hal years as assistant director o the Suite Lab in USUs Department o English.

Ryan M. "Rylish" Moeller teaches rhetorical theory, pro essional writing, and computergame culture at Utah State University. He has published two educational computergames: PeerFactor, with Bed ord/St. Martins Press, teaches rst- and second-yearcollege students the best practices o peer review, and Aristotles Assassins, with the

international game research consortium the Learning Games Initiative, teaches playersrhetorical theory and politics through a role-playing game set in Ancient Greece. Ryl-ishs work has also appeared in Technical Communication Quarterly , Kairos, fbreculture ,Computers and Composition Online , Works and Days , and in edited collections.

Cheryl E. Ball teaches and studies new media reading, composing and evaluationstrategies, especially as they relate to digital scholarship. She has a PhD in Rhetoric and Technical Communication rom Michigan Tech and an MFA in Poetry rom Virginia Com-

monwealth University. Shes published in Computers and Composition, CompositionStudies, Convergence, Fibreculture, and C&C Online. She is editor o Kairos: A Journal o Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy . Her online port olio can be ound at http:// www.ceball.com .

Documents

Bemer Moeller Ball1-2