From Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, October 5-9, 1998.
PCS FOR FAMILIES: A CASE STUDY IN THE PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF A
TECHNOLOGY-RICH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM
Faith McCreary, Ray Reaux, Roger Ehrich, Susan Hood, and Keith Rowland
ABSTRACT
Computers and network connectivity in the classroom raise new challenges in workspace design. Unlike corporate or dedicated laboratory facilities, a technology-rich classroom plays multiple roles throughout its working day. Classroom design demands flexible and robust construction, particularly when applied in an elementary school setting. Using the PCs for Families project as a case study, this paper discusses design issues of a technology- rich networked classroom from ergonomic design to system support.
INTRODUCTION
School systems across the country are investing in computer technology in the hopes of reaping educational benefits and better preparing students for the future. During the 1995-1996 school year alone, public schools spent somewhere between $3.5 and $4 billion on K- 12 educational technology (President's Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). However, designers have little guidance on how to create classrooms so that teachers and students can best use the technologies placed in them, Further, teachers and students are generally excluded from participating in the design process, leaving designers without a clear understanding of classroom dynamics.
Networked elementary school classrooms pose special challenges to the workspace designer. Schools seldom have the wiring or cabling conduits needed to support network technologies, and classroom work surfaces must function both as computer supports and as workspaces for many, diverse learning activities. These challenges are compounded by the dual-edged nature of ubiquitous technology. The same network technology, which facilitates learning, can also distract if used at inappropriate times.
Research in ergonomics shows that a well-designed learning environment impacts teachers and students physiologically, emotionally, and psychologically, and it contributes to a higher degree of learning and information handling (Bowers and Burkett, 1989; Caldwell, 1993; Knirk, 1987; Linton, Hellsing, Halme, and Akerstedt, 1994). However, improperly designed classrooms can impede learning by contributing to teacher and student fatigue, discomfort, and irritation, as well as posing distractions. Poorly designed computer workstations effect both the health and productivity of adult workers (Bergqvist, Wolgast, Nilsson, and Voss, 1995; Carter and Banister, 1994), with healthy posture being vital to avoiding musculoskeletal complaints. Preliminary work with children indicates adjusting the dimensions of the workstation to fit their anthropometric dimensions can significantly. improve the seated posture of children performing keyboarding tasks resulting in increased computer task performance (Laeser, 1997).
In this paper, we discuss the design of a classroom environment that was intended to accommodate teaching and learning while ensuring the safety and well-being of both teachers and students. We cover a range of issues concerning architectural design of the classroom, ergonomics of the physical workspace, and classroom support mechanisms, with our main focus on those aspects particular to educational settings. We discuss the tradeoffs we had to make and the lessons we learned from infusing technology into an existing classroom and observing how the classroom functioned over a school year. Finally, we make suggestions on how to address some of the concerns we discovered in designing an ergonomic, technology-rich classroom.
DESIGN OF A NETWORKED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
In September 1996, under the auspices of the United States Department of Education and in cooperation with the Montgomery County (Virginia) School System, the Virginia Tech Computer Science Department initiated the PCs for Families project. The five year project's goal is to determine the measurable effects on long term educational achievement of 5~ grade students from a constructivist curriculum and ubiquitous access to networked computing. To support this research, we designed a technology- rich networked classroom in a public elementary school system.
From the outset, we were not interested in a laboratory classroom model. Our goal was to integrate the technology into the fabric of the classroom, making it an ever-present, but not dominating, learning tool. At the same time, we wanted to limit the intrusiveness of the technology, thereby minimizing distractions during non-computer tasks.
We created our classroom using a participatory design process that included teachers, school technologists, and researchers. Together we constructed classroom scenarios that considered where we wanted children to focus their attention. With these scenarios, we tried to anticipate how they would collaborate and predict what resources they would use. Teachers and technologists prototyped classroom designs, using drawings with paper cutouts to produce designs which everyone could evaluate.
In our initial design, we considered such factors as lighting, visibility, sound, working spaces and accessibility, and optimal local area network LAN configurations. As the school year progressed, we made adjustments as necessary and designed special furniture, such as a teacher demonstration station, to support needs as they arose.
Design of the Physical Classroom
The physical infrastructure for the project is a networked, Internet-capable classroom at a rural elementary school. Like many schools, the school had expanded beyond its original intended capacity, and the classroom assigned to the fifth graders who were the subjects of our research was a 25' x 35' overflow mobile unit. The classroom's small size and physical layout severely constrained our layout alternatives and made effective use of the space challenging. Central to our design goals was a layout that:
- provided easy access for both students and teachers to all classroom areas;
- faced the students towards both the chalkboards and the teacher's desk; and
- provided a communal area separate from the desks.
Floor Covering.
In adult settings, floors serve mainly as walkways and furniture supports, but in classrooms they may also serve as spontaneous locations for students to "flop" down, such as around the teacher during a common reading. Comfort, as well as utility, of floor coverings is of concern to the classroom designer. Because of this, we chose to carpet our classroom with industrial quality short carpeting.
Design of the Student Workstation
Our classroom is one of relatively few in the country where computers are on every desktop, within reach of students at any time. Every two students share a large computer desk and a networked computer. We chose to pair two students to a computer for several reasons. First, studies suggest that the learning experience is enhanced when classroom computers are shared by two students (Inkpen, Booth, Gribble, and Klawa, 1995; Peters, 1996). Computer sharing promotes student interaction and collaboration, and may result in improved achievement and more positive attitudes towards learning. Our second reason for pairing students was more pragmatic, we did not have space to provide a desk for each child, especially since we did not want the computers to dominate the desk top to the exclusion of all other learning material.
Desks.
We were cognizant of the fact that learning would require a flexible workspace that allowed reading of books, writing and drawing on paper, cutting and pasting of paper art, and even finger painting. Using the computer is only one of many purposes for the desk, and in fact, we observed that students typically spent less than a quarter of the school day actively engaged in using the computer. To support multi-purpose use, we purchased specialized height-adjustable desks (30" x 60"). The desks provided a large enough workspace to seat the computer monitor and still give students sufficient desk top surface for a flexible workspace that could support other learning material in the performance of non-computer work. An additional benefit of a large desk was that it provided sufficient space underneath to put stackable plastic "crates" which the students used to store their books and possessions. Thus each student had a private space, for them a psychologically important consideration.
Because having sufficient desktop space was a serious concern and we wanted to minimize the computer's distraction and intrusion when students were tasked with non computer-related work, we mounted dual retractable trays under the table to hold the keyboards. This design lowered the keyboard and mouse, a setup shown to reduce discomfort and risk of musculoskeletal injury in adults (Hedge, McCrobie, Land, Morimoto, and Rodriguez, 1995). In non-computer tasks, stowing the keyboard and mouse freed up the physical desk surface and when the teachers demanded a student's undivided attention. The teacher could also tell at a glance whether a student was paying attention to her or playing with the computer.
The teacher paired the students based on personality compatibility, and as the year progressed, these pairings were subject to change. Although ergonomics dictate that workstations should conform to the physical dimensions of its user, the teacher did not pair the students based on physical compatibility. Further complicating the situation, other students used the room during free periods, resulting in different students using the same furniture. Thus the teacher never attempted to adjust table height to match the dimensions of the students. Further, as table adjustment involved moving computer equipment, she considered the operation too risky. Hence, the tables were set at a standard height (28.5"), determined by the principal, and never adjusted.
Processor Placement.
Because we wanted to maximize the physical desk surface area, we placed the computer processors in tower configurations on a tray under the desk. Placing the processor under the desk instead of on the desk under the monitor ensured that the monitor was not placed too high from the student's angle of gaze. However, it had the disadvantage of requiring the student to bend down every time he or she wanted to insert a floppy disk or CD-ROM. We found that the freed desk-top space was well worth this trade-off, especially since the students did not have to insert a disk very often as they had in-effect their own dedicated computer. If, however, students do not have dedicated computers or they cannot access their data through a network, they may use the disk drives more often. In such a case, the advantages of having the processor on the desk may well outweigh the loss of desktop surface area.
When we first installed the computers in the classroom, we placed them directly on the floor. This however made them susceptible to being kicked by students. Surprisingly, we had no incidences of computer failure directly attributable to a student kicking a processor. However, to prevent such a possibility, we installed commercially available platforms that bolted on to a leg of the computer desk. These platforms raised the processor several inches above the floor and provided a solid encasement for the computer.
Monitor.
A concern raised by the teacher, and one that we observed in classroom dynamics, was how the 15" monitors obscured some short students from the teacher's line of sight. This was of particular worry to the teacher because students with short attention spans would sometimes hide behind the monitor and distract themselves, either with the computer or with other material, while the teacher presented her instructions. On several occasions, the teacher expressed a desire for a "master cut-off" switch with which she could disable the students' monitor.
We never installed such a switch. However, there are technological solutions that may address this concern. One possibility is to use flat-panel displays that can be folded down when not used so they do not obscure line-of-sight. Although the cost of flat-panel displays, especially those using the superior image reproducing active matrix TFT, is substantially higher than the cost of CRT monitors, their costs are dropping rapidly. Currently, two different flat-panel display technologies exist in common use. A passive matrix display is not appropriate for classroom applications due to image washout from ambient light and its inadequacy in reproducing multi-media intensive images such as animation.
Another possible solution to obstructive monitors is to recess them in the desks under glass. However this solution is less than optimal for several reasons. First, it reduces the amount of space available under the desk, a region commonly used for personal storage. Secondly, the gaze angle necessary to view the embedded monitor would require the young students to sit too high. Although this strategy might work with taller adults who naturally have a larger gaze angle, it is not suitable for our smaller citizens.
Computer Controls.
We equipped each computer workstation with two keyboards, one for each student. We felt that individual keyboards would give each child a sense of personal ownership and control over the computer. This sense of ownership was important for both teacher and students; they saw their computer desktops as personal spaces. Students in particular would be indignant when other people moved their icons around, or even worse, reset their screen savers.
At first, control of a keyboard was by a switch box which we custom-constructed and placed in front of the monitor, The students used the switch to toggle between the two keyboards. Although we saw no serious incidents of resource hoarding or contention, we did have several switch-box failures due to rough treatment by the students. We have since replaced these switch- boxes with commercially available digital multiplexors called Y- Key-Keys that automatically switch between the two keyboards based on signal input. Because these switches connected to the computer at the keyboard port located behind the processor, students did not fiddle with them.
Although each student had his or her own keyboard, a student pair shared a single mouse to the computer. We debated the questions of one keyboard versus two and one mouse versus two. The teacher's intuition was that two keyboards would prevent shuffling (the keyboard is a bulky device) and lost time, but that providing two mice as well would invite unnecessary play. We agreed to try a single-mouse workstation, and if experience dictated, we could later add a second mouse. Inkpen et. al. (1995) found that one mouse could cause resource contentions as well as gender bias among paired users. Although we did no empirical studies, we observed no situation that warranted us using a second mouse. The biases we observed had less to do with gender or resource contention than with students' personalities.
Design of Network Access
We connected all computers in the classroom, a laser printer, a color printer, and a scanner into a LAN. Because all 14 computers in our classroom are networked and connected to the Internet, we wanted flexible wiring, not only for power, but also for network connections. Thus we installed integrated network connections and power outlets on the floor in spaced intervals. We were able to do this because the classroom was a mobile unit, allowing us to drill through the floor. In retrospect, we were lucky the classroom was not in the elementary school building itself. We would not have been able to drill into the floor to run wires since the floors in the building directly rested on concrete. Although cables could certainly be strung over ceiling tiles, dropping cables from the ceiling would distract students obscure vision, and be susceptible to accidents.
Design of the Support System
A major concern in incorporating computer technology into an educational setting is a teacher's ability to integrate it into the learning process, while simultaneously gaining proficiency in tasks needed to keep the technology functioning. Most current school technology programs are based upon in-service training. In-service training programs expose teachers to the computer technology and train them in the mechanistic use of the application. In themselves, they do not train teachers how to best apply networked computing in instruction (Wilson and Peterson, 1995).
Our teacher had been recipient of limited in-service training on the mechanistic use of the technology. However, because we wanted the teacher to focus on effectively applying the technology into the daily learning process, not cope with it, we created a partnership between a technology specialist and an experienced teacher. This partnership has allowed the teacher to maintain control over classroom curriculum and protocol, and prevented her from becoming discouraged or diverted by technological issues that have no direct bearing on her job. When technological problems occurred during a lesson, the technology specialist looked for technological solutions, leaving the teacher free to focus on an alternative presentation.
DISCUSSION
The PCs for Families project is only in its second year, with three years before it ends. Although still in the early stages, we have learned much from our experiences.
First, we found participatory design an effective means for integrating network technology into the structure of an existing elementary school classroom. Giving teachers design authority gave them ownership of the classroom environment, and provided the design team with critical insights into the nature of a networked learning environment.
Second, placing adjustable furniture in the classroom is not enough to ensure the health and safety of its users. Educational furnishings are not traditionally adjusted to fit users, and the addition of computers to the classroom did not change the existing culture. Adjustability was further complicated by pairing of different sized students at workstations and the reticence of the teacher to undertake any adjustments which involved moving computer technology. Practical classroom help is needed in adjusting workstations to fit individual students.
Third, we found that technological support enables the teacher to effectively leverage the potential that ubiquitous network computing offers to enhance learning in the classroom. Training on technology is not enough. Just like a corporate lab model, the teacher has to have a technologist specialist to support him or her in effective utilization of networked technology.
Transforming an existing, traditional classroom into an effective networked learning environment is a complicated task requiring the skills of teachers, technology specialists, and researchers. Now in our second year of the project, we continue systematic evaluation of the classroom, while at the same time continuing to explore new and innovative ways in which our technology-rich classroom can better support young learners and their teachers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the support of The Department of Education's Field Initiated Studies Program for the support of this project.
REFERENCES
Bergqvist, U., Wolgast, E., Nilsson, B., and Voss, M. (1995). The influence of VDT work on musculoskeletal disorders. Ergonomics, 38(4), 75462.
Bowers, J., and Burkett, C. (1989). Effects of Physical and School Environment on Students and Faculty. Educational Facility Planner, 27(1), 28-29.
Caldwell, B. (1993). The Learning Friendly Classroom. Ergonomics in Design. January, 20-35.
Carter, J., and Banister, E. (1994). Musculoskeletal problems in VDT work: a review. Ergonomics, 37 (10), 1623-48
Hedge, A., McCrobie, D., Land, B., Morimoto, S., and Rodrigues, S. (1995). Healthy Keyboarding: Effects of Wrist Rests, Keyboard Trays, and a Preset Tiltdown System on Wrist Posture, Seated Posture, and Musculoskeletal Discomfort. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 630-634). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Gribble, S. D., and Klawa, M., (1995). Give and take: children collaborating on one computer. CHI '95 Short Papers. 258-259.
Knirk, F. (1987). Instructional Facilities for the Information Age. Syracuse, NY: Educational Resource Information Center: Clearinghouse on Information Resources.
Laeser, K. (1997). The Effect of Computer Workstation Design on Student Posture and Computer Task Performance: Children Grades Six and Eight. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Cornell University.
Linton, S., Hellsing A., Halme, T., and Akerstedt, K. (1994). Effects of ergonomically designed school furniture on pupils' attitudes, symptoms and behavior. Applied Ergonomics, 25(5), 299- 304.
Peters, J. (1996). Paired Keyboards as a Tool For Internet Exploration of Third Grade Students. Journal Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 229-242.
President's Panel on Educational Technology. (March 1997). Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States. http://www2.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k- 12ed.html.
Wilson, B. G., and Peterson, K., (1995), Successful technology integration in an elementary school: a case study. In C. Lucas and L. Lucas (Eds), Practitioners Write the Book: What Works in Educational Technology (pp. 701-767).
Copyright © 1998 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. For a complete copy (with tables and figures), contact Lois Smith at hfes@compuserve.com.