As Douglas and Gifford stated an appealing or preferable classroom should be bright, with either artificial or natural lighting, comfortable seating, various materials, textures or pictures in the room, it should be a fairly good sized room with a view to the outdoors, have a good seating arrangement and a suitable seat grade. As I made it a point to observe my classes I noticed how undesirable they really are and how much they lack in what Douglas and Gifford consider being a friendly or desirable classroom.
The first class I observed was Modoc 217 where two of my classes take place. This particular class had the desks which are connected to the chairs which are extremely uncomfortable, all facing forward in rows, the class is medium sized which makes it feel less cramped which is a plus. There are windows in this classroom making it have good lighting but they are in the back of the classroom which means only the professor not the students can see out of them. The walls are completely white with no pictures or color of that sort making the room very boring. I believe that professors would enjoy this classroom more than students, because they are able to see out of the windows and they don’t have to endure sitting in the terrible seats. I would suggest that this classroom needs not only more comfortable seats for the students but I think some pictures or color on the walls would definitely help the overall appearance and likeability of this room. Gifford and Douglas would say that sociopetal design would probably be a better learning experience in comparison to the sociofugual patterns represented in this room.
The next class I observed was Butte 102; I believe that Douglas and Gifford would consider this the least desirable of the three classrooms I observed. Instead of the desks being connected to the chairs there are long tables with separate chairs, which are not much more comfortable. There are no windows in this classroom making it very...