Student-Centered Classroom Design and Technology

Research suggests that effective learning space design improves student achievement and engagement. Administrators can greatly improve a student’s progress by moving them from an ineffective learning space to a highly effective learning space. Important factors include naturalness (i.e., natural light, air quality), individualization (i.e., ownership, flexibility), and stimulation (i.e., complexity level).

This report describes how districts select and implement classroom layouts, furniture, and technology resources to support student-centered instructional practices.

Redesign motivations

Educators are increasingly focused on how classroom design affects learning. The crowdfunding site DonorsChoose saw requests for funding for flexible furniture increase from 110 to 21,163 from 2015 to 2016. Recently, districts and cities—including all profiled districts—have begun to undergo school upgrade and classroom design initiatives. In major cases (i.e., cases that incorporate building renovations), initiative costs can reach prices from $42.5 million dollars to 1.2 billion dollars.

Contacts and research studies suggest that learning space design measurably contributes to student academic achievement. Teachers at District A report that the quality and creativity of student work improved following learning space redesign. Further, a study of 153 U.K. classrooms asserts that administrators can greatly improve a student’s progress by moving that student from an ineffective learning space to a highly effective learning space. Importantly, the study found that whole-school factors (e.g., size, play facilities, navigation routes) are less impactful on student outcomes than the design of individual classrooms.

Classroom design

Research on learning space design recommends that teachers segment their classroom into defined learning zones that promote different types of learning, including individual learning, group work, and content presentation. Administrators at District A and District C base classroom learning zones on the work on Rosan Bosch and David Thornburg. These learning zones support different learning styles, encourage new teaching methods, and increase student mobility.

These learning zones may be present in individual classrooms or throughout a school building. For example, school buildings may feature hands-on makerspaces, movement-centric gyms, and central watering hole cafes, while individual classrooms within the building each have their own mountaintops, campfires, and caves.

Six types of learning zones at District A

Classroom technology

Contacts at most profiled districts report that administrators underwent or are currently undergoing 1:1 implementation to provide laptops and/or tablets to students. At District B, administrators also created a bring-your-own device policy that allows students to use their phones, tablets, and laptops for instructional purposes. Contacts at District B report that 1:1 devices allow students to follow along during teacher presentations on their device even if not in a good position to see the screen. At District A, administrators purchased digital pens that allow students to take notes on their screen during presentations to facilitate effective 1:1 device use during presentations.

Students can also use 1:1 devices to participate more effectively in classroom presentations. At District A and District E, teachers use TVs and projectors with casting technology (i.e., technology that allows teachers and students to easily share content on their device’s screen for the entire class to view). During presentations, teachers can use this technology to quickly showcase student work, understand and respond to student questions, and even conduct classroom polls.

Testing and implementation

“If we’re bringing in a new software program, we [our instructional coaches and content-area supervisors] look at our Tier 1 curriculum for that content area and ask, ‘how does this program help us close the gap so that more students are successful?’”

Administrator at profiled district

Both District B and District D developed standardized processes to evaluate technology and/or furniture that incorporate student and teacher feedback, pilot testing, and request for proposal/demo processes. District B uses a consistent process for furniture and technology purchases, and District D developed a specific protocol to approve adaptive technology programs for blended learning.

Contacts from District D emphasize that at the core of their evaluation, they determine whether a technology product aligns with their five- to ten-year district technology and strategic plans. In this way, the district can ensure that new technology purchases will remain relevant to their district in the future, even as the district purchases new, more advanced technology. To ensure that purchases align with district and teacher needs, administrators at both districts also incorporate teacher and school administrator feedback into the process.