Classroom communications post pandemic: a case study

The study situates the return to in-person learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, noting WHO-recommended preventive measures (handwashing, social distancing, face coverings) and Qatar’s specific policies (Ehteraz app, phased reopening in 2021). As campuses reopened with restrictions, classrooms were reorganized for distancing, creating unfamiliar communication dynamics. Given limited prior research on how such preventive measures affect classroom communication, the study asks: What impact do preventive measures have on classroom communication within a post-pandemic classroom environment? The research emphasizes student engagement as tied to performance and explores how distancing and face coverings influence communication within two interconnected design-studio classrooms configured to comply with distancing requirements.

The review synthesized over 50 sources, with 29 forming the core, spanning environmental design, proxemics, blended learning/technology, classroom design, and verbal/non-verbal communication.

• Personal space and proxemics: Building on Hall’s foundational work, personal space is culturally variable and regulates interaction; COVID-19 made formerly invisible boundaries visible through distancing. Spacing mechanisms (partitions, furniture, layout) help maintain perceived personal space. Proxemic zones (intimate, personal, social, public) are contextual; recent work (Mehta, 2020) shows spatial repurposing in response to distancing.
• Crowding: Defined as psychological tension from perceived insufficient space; it relates to failures in regulating social interaction and personal space invasion. While distancing might reduce crowding, perceptions are subjective and influenced by relationships and control over interaction.
• Non-verbal communication: A large portion of classroom management/interaction is non-verbal (body language, eye contact, distance, touch). Teacher warmth and positive non-verbal cues foster participation; locus of control influences involvement. Visual and auditory cues are central to comprehension and engagement.
• Classroom layout and affordances: Layout functions as non-verbal communication, creating micro-environments. Affordances (movable furniture, Zoom, microphones) enable or constrain engagement and proximity.
• Acoustics: Effective speech transmission relies on balanced direct/reflected sound. Echo/reverberation, sound transmission (HVAC, corridors), and room finishes affect intelligibility, listening effort, and teacher vocal load.
• Lighting: Daylight and spectrum influence alertness, sleep-wake cycles, and performance. Case studies in UAE/classrooms highlight issues of glare, luminance contrast, and distribution; control and shading mitigate discomfort.
• Zoom/technology: Instructor digital proficiency and metacognitive support affect outcomes; benefits include expanded reach and multimedia, but technical issues can reduce satisfaction. Transitioning hard-skill disciplines may be harder; the role of Zoom as a supplementary tool in distanced classrooms warrants exploration.

Design: Qualitative case study guided by Case Study Observational Research (CSOR) with epistemic contextualism. Cross-sectional over three months (Sept–Nov 2021) in Qatar. Setting: Two formerly single-group design-studio classrooms reconfigured post-COVID into two interconnected rooms (A and B) linked by vestibules to operate as a unified, socially distanced classroom. Classroom A housed the instructor’s workstation, TV screen, and audio/speakers; Classroom B had a projector. Microphones and Zoom linked rooms. Participants and ethics: Access approved by department and research office. IRB approval obtained for interviews. Inclusion criteria: college students aged 18–40, fluent in English; exclusion included visual/hearing impairments requiring devices, severe physical/cognitive disabilities. Interviewed sample: 17 students (from n=20 eligible; ages 18–20) majoring in interior design; three withdrew due to scheduling. Data collection:

• Non-participant observations: Conducted by the second researcher during bi-weekly 60-minute sessions over three months. Field notes, hand sketches, and circulation/movement maps captured communication behaviors, angulation, body language, gestures, and unforeseen themes.
• Semi-structured interviews: Face-to-face, ~30 minutes each, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Questions derived from literature and observations; mix of open- and close-ended items. Funnel approach used to build rapport and minimize bias. Data analysis: Hybrid thematic analysis combining deductive (predefined themes: personal space, crowding, non-verbal, verbal/ergonomics, Zoom) and inductive coding to capture emergent themes (e.g., microphone etiquette). Reflexivity and a Devil’s Advocate approach were used to mitigate bias; confidentiality maintained by de-identification and role separation between instructor and observer.

Observations (3 months):

• Instructor presence/location strongly influenced engagement; students were more attentive and responsive when the instructor was physically present and within their line of sight.
• Eye contact and visibility of body language enhanced verbal communication and participation; students adjusted body angulation toward the instructor or screen to engage, with potential musculoskeletal implications.
• Students seated further from the instructor or microphone participated less; proximity to microphone increased participation.
• Technology (microphones/Zoom) reduced duplicative speaking across rooms but introduced fatigue when not optimized. Interview findings (n=17 unless noted; selected quantified results from Table 3):
• Personal space/crowding: Layout perceived as spacious/convenient (11; 55%); crowding seldom reported; some used brief breaks/phones as coping strategies when overwhelmed.
• Non-verbal: Body language enhanced attentiveness and engagement (16; 80%); shyness reduced participation (9; 45%); angulation toward screen/instructor with potential musculoskeletal issues (4; 20%).
• Verbal/ergonomics and layout: Classroom layout and seat location affected engagement (11; 55%); TV/equipment location affected communication (5; 25%); instructor workstation location impacted engagement (4; 20%); circulation shaped student-to-student communication (3; 15%); stronger peer communication within the same room (3; 15%).
• Acoustics: Technical difficulties (e.g., mic handling, echo) affected acoustics (7; 35%); external noise distractions (3; 15%).
• Lighting: Daylighting preferred and glare largely insignificant (6; 30%); desire for adjustable artificial lighting (4; 20%); inadequate electrical outlets noted (1; 5%).
• Technology/Zoom and microphones: Zoom sharing/camera helped some focus (3; 15%); Zoom also seen as distracting or a reminder of online learning (3; 15%); Zoom reduced instructor movement and caused fatigue (1; 5%). Unfamiliarity with microphone manners (5; 25%); microphone location affected engagement (12; 70.6%). Emergent themes:
• Microphone etiquette: Inconsistent mic technique (distance, angle, breathing noise) degraded intelligibility and engagement.
• Locus of control/learned helplessness: Some students displayed internal control (adapting seat/strategies), while others hesitated to participate due to anticipated obstacles (mic distance/tech delays).

Findings address the research question by showing that preventive measures and the resulting reconfiguration of space redefining proxemics and affordances significantly shape classroom communication. Distancing expanded personal space and generally reduced psychological crowding, while furniture layout and amenities (pin-up walls, windows, electrical access) created micro-environments that mediate engagement. Instructor visibility and body language were pivotal for both verbal and non-verbal communication, consistent with prior literature; Zoom could partially substitute visual cues via camera eye contact but also introduced fatigue and distraction for some. Acoustically, microphones alleviated teacher vocal strain yet introduced new challenges (echo, handling noise, inconsistent mic technique), and adjacent-room noise further distracted wall-side students. Lighting had comparatively less impact; preferences varied, and larger workspaces helped mitigate glare. The study identifies new hidden dimensions of post-pandemic proxemics (e.g., proximity to microphones, instructor’s desk, pin-up walls, windows) that regulate interaction. Emergent constructs such as microphone etiquette and student locus of control/learned helplessness suggest mechanisms by which spatial/technological constraints influence participation. Overall, the results emphasize the need for adaptable layouts (e.g., socio-petal arrangements) and tailored technology practices to support communication across distanced, multi-room classrooms.

The study shows that socially distanced classroom configurations reshape proxemics and communication. Expanded personal space reduced perceived crowding, while instructor visibility and non-verbal cues remained central to engagement. Technology—especially microphones and Zoom—was essential for bridging rooms but carried trade-offs (fatigue, distraction, technical issues). New hidden dimensions of personal space emerged (proximity to microphones, instructor desk, pin-up walls, windows), suggesting the value of socio-petal layouts and equitable amenities for design-studio contexts. Practical implications include training for microphone etiquette, optimizing equipment placement, enhancing acoustic treatments, and providing adjustable lighting. Future research should test different socio-petal layouts, evaluate microphone training/protocols, study lighting-location effects with larger samples, assess acoustic interventions for hybrid spaces, and examine transferability across disciplines and cultural contexts.

This was a single-site qualitative case in Qatar with a small, homogeneous sample (interior design students; 17 interviewed). Results are highly contextual and may not transfer across institutions, countries, or disciplines (especially hard sciences). Non-participant observation could not use audio/video recordings due to cultural constraints; a single observer was used during restricted campus access. Confidentiality needs limited linking responses to exact seat locations, constraining specificity (e.g., lighting-seat correlations). Some constructs (learned helplessness, locus of control) were identified with few responses and require larger, mixed-method samples. Technical setup and temporary classroom arrangements (acoustically unprepared spaces, equipment familiarity) may have influenced outcomes.