Section 4.4 Where to teach: Modifying the classroom setting.
¶The university had multitudes of classrooms suitable for lectures. The active engagement pedagogy that the faculty were envisioning, however, required tables at which small groups of students could work together while using equipment during an experiment, discussing a visualization activity on a computer, or contemplating what they were writing on a large whiteboard during a problem-solving exploration. Walls made of whiteboards would enable small groups to work together on a problem and then share their thinking with the whole group in ways visible to all by referring to what they had written and drawn on the boards. Shelving and closed cabinets would enable instructors to store ready-at-hand materials for spontaneous as well as planned demonstrations. Such furnishings would make feasible the more open-ended and interactive pedagogy the faculty intended to enact.
The administrator responsible for remodeling, however, did not perceive the project as qualifying for university funding. As noted in the 2003 article:
The small upper-level student numbers (compared to huge introductory course numbers) disqualified the paradigms project from receiving the funding ordinarily granted to classroom remodeling. And despite external funding, the project was also disqualified from receiving remodeling money earmarked for research laboratories. (p. 57).
In discussing his role in fostering development of the Paradigms in Physics program, the department chair reflected:
The remodeling of the paradigms room was an enormous problem...we needed a dedicated classroom...It took a long time to persuade (the administrator) to let us have the money we needed to fix up that room.
This is an example of ways in which attitudes of administrators far from the instructional scene can adversely affect the resources needed for successful educational reforms.