Skip to main content

Boy-girl seating plans

About 20 years ago at the school I taught in, Ripon Grammar School, in the MFL department we introduced a boy-girl seating pattern in Y7 and Y8. We did not extend it beyond Y8 because setting usually meant there was an imbalance of the sexes, so it was not possible for every table to have a boy and a girl.

At the time we justified it with two main reasons: the more important one was that would discourage chatting and silliness between boys, thus creating a more civilised atmosphere in the classroom; the second, less plausible, reason was to do with the idea that boys and girls may have different approaches to learning, boys being on average more competitive and greater risk-takers, girls being more conscientious and worried about getting things right. In MFL lessons, where pair work plays such an important role, who you work with is important.

Apart from that we did not have a seating plan policy in the department as such. I would let children sit where they wanted, occasionally moving distracted ones, whilst colleagues sometimes produced structured seating plans, especially with more challenging classes.

My department agreed that the boy-girl system was a sensible policy which encouraged good behaviour and I would commend it to other language departments.

Looking back on this now I think there is a third good reason for boy-girl seating. In school, if you observe children at break and lunch, the younger children especially tend to congregate with members of their own sex. To force children to sit with someone of the opposite gender in the classroom may go some small way to giving children greater confidence with members of the opposite sex. I would sometimes use the line "this is a classroom, not a social club" to justify not allowing friends of the same sex to sit together.

If you have reservations about boy-girl seating plans for any reason, you could try it out now and again. It's a good idea in any case to have children change partners from time to time.

Comments

  1. I taught in a boys' grammar school, so couldn't have adopted boy-girl seating, but I do agree that for pair work, the pairings are important.
    My son teaches Physics in a girls' grammar school. His seating plans in KS3 are based on date of birth, with exceptions allowed for those who must sit at the front because of eyessight, hearing difficulties etc. He finds that it tends to work because it means the youngest - often/generally the smallest and silliest (?) -  are at the front and it acts as a visual reminder that they are nearly a year younger than the oldest in the class and may need more help just because they are younger.  It also makes a change from the alphabetic seating plans the class gets in other subjects.


    Jennifer Speller

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you. Your son's approach seems very sensible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,