Skip to main content

How do you seat your classes?

Periodically on Twitter a thread begins about seating pupils in rows or around grouped tables. Such threads often associate seating arrangements with a general view of education. In essence, rows indicate a traditionalist view (teacher as “sage on stage”) while groups reflect a progressive perspective (“guide from the side”). I wonder what seating arrangements you use and why.

I tried out various seating systems during my career: rows, horse shoes and grouped tables, occasionally a combination of central horse shoe and rows to the side and behind. For at least 10 years my tiny classroom meant rows were the only solution. For many “itinerant” teachers you have no choice - you turn up and work with whatever is already in place. By the end of my career I used forward facing rows then moved tables into a horseshoe for small groups of about 15 or fewer.

The arguments for different seating patterns have been well rehearsed: better teacher and board visibility with rows, greater encouragement of peer discussion with groups and facilitation of whole group discussion with horseshoes. Research on this area is very limited and not much help. When we wrote The Language Teacher Toolkit we came across just one study which gave an advantage to rows for individual quiet study (less opportunity for distraction).

In the end, for larger groups of around 30 pupils I was most comfortable with rows. Why? I wanted pupils to see me and the board clearly and I wanted to be able to easily scan the class, left to right, front to back. Rows helped me establish good control and relationships. I was not a frequent user of group work, but did make frequent use of pair work, particularly what Doug Lemov calls “turn and talk”, where, after modelling work from the front, pupils then practised in pairs. Rows, therefore, did not prevent me moving away from teaching from the front.

Of course seating in rows does not preclude group work or “moving around the class” activities such as surveys, running dictation or “find someone who...” tasks. My A-level groups sat in horse shoes unless the group was larger than usual. This enabled my to sit, do whole group discussion and pair work.

I don’t see a practical or pedagogical advantage to grouped seating. Pair work is more efficient than group work as there is a greater need to contribute. In groups pupils have to turn to see you when you are explaining, using visuals or leading interactions from the front. I would think inattention is more likely when using grouped tables.

Finally, I don’t accept that seating patterns need reflect your general view of education as either traditional or progressive, teacher or child-centred. You can just see this as a pragmatic issue. What helps students work most effectively?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

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 langua...

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 ...

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, ...