Skip to main content

Classroom seating arrangements

Through my teaching career I experimented with a number of desk arrangements: rows, cabaret style, horseshoes and double horseshoes. In later years I regularly used rows for large groups and a single horseshoe for groups below about 12 students (most A-level classes).

I think my temptation to used grouped tables, cabaret style, was a vague feeling that it was less formal and that it suited pair and small group work. On reflection I believe it was a bad idea.

What does research say?

This piece of research seems to confirm what common sense suggests.

http://www.corelearn.com/files/Archer/Seating_Arrangements.pdf

I have seen this confirmed in other studies. Let me quote from the abstract:

"Seating arrangements are important classroom setting events because they have the potential to help prevent problem behaviours that decrease student attention and diminish available instructional time.... Eight studies that investigated at least two of three common arrangements (i.e., rows, groups or semi-circles) were considered. Results indicate that teachers should let the nature of the task dictate seating arrangements. Evidence supports the idea that students display higher levels of appropriate behaviour during individual tasks when they are seated in rows, with disruptive students benefiting the most."

It seems to me therefore that when seating students you would be wise not to follow any fashion or vague notion that cabaret style is more modern, less formal or discourages communication. Better, in my view, to prioritise behaviour and the reality that much lesson time is spent with the focus on the teacher with eye contact being hugely important. Having students watch your every facial expression is important is establishing successful relationships.

Tables and students can easily move in any case, so if you need space for walking about or acting, then just pile up tables. If it's pair or group work you want to do, then students can quickly turn around.

My methodology was largely teacher-led but with copious pair work so rows made total sense.

How do you arrange your classroom?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

  1. What are your opinions on letting children choose their seating arrangements for lessons (core or non-core) John Spencer (2015) let his class choose their seats for every lesson he taught them. He worried it would make them more social but children will try anything to chat to their friends regardless. He said "I didn’t have to fight those battles anymore" Opinions on this style of teaching?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am open-monded about that. I think the teacher should exercise their professional akill in seating children. If you have to fight battles I wonder if something is amiss in the first place. As for myself, I let children sit where they wanted within the framework of a boy-girl seating pattern with 11-13 year olds (our department policy). I would then move any children if any behaviour issues arose. I didn't let pupils move around once the pattern was established.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The seating arrangement in a class is a very important factor to children's learning, Hastings and Chantrey Wood (2002) discuss various research studies which say that "children's attention to their work increases when they are seated in pairs or in arrangements where no one is seated opposite them" therefore, the idea of rows or a horseshoe would be an ideal seating arrangement for children receive the most effective learning environment. However, for group and collaborative work children are best sat in groups and it may be ideal to move the tables when the lesson focuses on individual or paired learning.

    Hastings, N. and Chantrey Wood, K. (2002) Reorganising Primary Classroom Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for commenting. My reading on this suggests the research evidence is not that strong overall, but corresponds with common sense. Your quoted material goes along with my findings. An obvious point is that tables can be quickly moved so forward-facing tables do not necessarily stop you doing pair and group work.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

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).

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,