Recognizing that traditional classrooms do not facilitate active learning, colleges and universities are increasingly converting traditional classroom space into studio space. Research indicates positive effects on student learning when studio classroom space is combined with active learning pedagogy, but the research does not separate the effect of the space from the effect of the pedagogy or address the effect of the space on teaching. The case studies described in this article suggest that studio space can launch teachers into active learning pedagogy and can increase the positive effects of that pedagogy on learning. Teachers and students perceived direct effects of the space itself.Key words classroom space . active learning . pedagogy . facilitiesMention of a college classroom may conjure up images of students sitting in rows of immovable desks or in a lecture hall, taking notes as a teacher talks behind a podium at the front of the room. Colleges and universities are now recognizing that these traditional classrooms do not facilitate active learning (Jamieson 2003). Active learning is widely understood as an effective pedagogy because it improves problem-solving, collaboration, and communication abilities as well as motivation to learn. Increasingly, colleges and universities are converting traditional classroom space into studio space that is designed to facilitate active learning pedagogies (Dittoe and Porter 2007).

No abstract

No abstract

Previous research has indicated that engineering faculty do not follow best practices when commenting on students' technical writing. However, it is unclear whether the faculty prefer to comment in these ineffective ways, or whether they prefer more effective practices but simply do not enact them. This study adapts a well known study of response in composition to ask whether engineering faculty prefer authoritative, form-focused comments, or whether they may prefer to write different sorts of comments. We asked ten civil engineering faculty to comment on a sample paper and then rank their preferences for provided versions of comments on the same paper. One provided version emphasized comments on content, one emphasized comments on form, and one was balanced. Comparisons of the respondents' preferences and practices suggest that the engineering faculty recognize and value content-focused, non-authoritative responses, but generally do not write comments that conform to these values. We consider the implication of these findings for research on response to technical writing as well as for technical writing faculty in their own course. While recognizing the need for more research, we also discuss ways in which writing professionals, including WAC administrators and technical writing professors, can encourage engineering faculty to enact their preferences for response styles that reflect best practices.

Many engineering undergraduates receive their first and perhaps most intensive exposure to engineering communication through writing lab reports in lab courses taught by graduate teaching assistants (TAs). Most of the TAs' teaching of writing happens through their comments on students' lab reports. Technical writing faculty need to be aware of TAs' response practices so they can build on or counteract that instruction as needed. This study examines the response practices of two TAs and the ways the practices shifted after the TAs began using a grading rubric. The analysis reveals distinct patterns in focus and mode, some reflecting best practices and some not. It also indicates encouraging changes after the TAs started using the grading rubric. The TAs' marginalia became more content focused and specific and, perhaps most important, less authoritative and more likely to reflect a coaching mode. The article concludes with implications for technical writing courses.