Classroom_Layout_and_Student_Management

The effects of classroom layout on student interaction and classroom control This study examined whether classroom seating layout affected student interaction and classroom control during Command Leadership and Management courses (CLM). Seating layouts included: a) individual seating arrangements, b) horseshoe, c) grouped, and d) paired seating arrangement. The study consisted of 12 soldiers on a junior CLM course which was conducted over a period of 5days. In conducting the research I looked at two main areas; 1) social interaction and 2) classroom control. As well as this I recorded results of the students’ personal feelings and opinions of the classroom via questionnaires. I also recorded student interaction and classroom control via a student seating tick chart which was tallied by myself. See fig 1 for student seating tick charts. There are numerous reasons for conducting this research, the main areas that i focused on were, did the changes improve student interaction and therefore improve student learning' Did the changes improve classroom control and therefore improve the management aspect of teaching' And was I better able to highlight the students who where in need of extra help or tuition' Douglas and Gifford stated that the desire to improve education has stimulated awareness for the necessity of improving learning environments (Douglas & Gifford, 2001). All teachers should want to improve education and should therefore consider the learning environment that their students find themselves in, and whether there can be any improvements made. Previous research into this field has primarily focused upon the subject of the physical and social classroom environment and how these can affect academic performance (Cheng, 1994; Martin, 2002). In this report we will be primarily focusing on the physical environment with minor reference to the social classroom environment. What is meant by the terms physical classroom environment and social classroom environment is 1) physical classroom environment: is the physical layout of the room and the positioning of the students. 2) Social classroom environment: is the groups’ that naturally form amongst students or the pre developed groups that may have been formed. Previous research has shown that attitudes towards schools and the classroom where more receptive towards the physical environment and that students preferred classrooms that where clean, orderly, had the correct equipment and had sufficient space to conduct the lesson (Cheng 1994). Douglas and Gifford (2001) found, that students preferred classrooms with communal seating layouts. It has been suggested that an effective seating layout can create a more productive classroom (Rosenfeld, Lambert, & Black, 1985) and that it can also positively influence students' and develop greater student interaction and improve their on-task behaviours (Hastings and Schwieso, 1995). In a study investigating on-task engagement behavior in two parallel classes of 9 to 11 year olds, Hastings and Schwieso, (1995) found that rates of on-task engagement were significantly higher when students sat in rows versus groups. Furthermore, students in circle and semi-circle layouts asked more questions than those in the row-and-column layouts (Marx, Fuhrer & Hartig, 1999). "Traditional" layouts comprised of rows of desks facing the instructor increase students' ability to focus and concentrate (Budge, 2000; Hofkins, 1994). The actual layout of the classroom may not only have an effect on the students and their levels of interactions but it may subconsciously effect the way in which teachers deliver their lessons. I would argue that individual seating layouts would make the teacher the main focus of the lesson and therefore lend itself to lessons that are more didactic in nature, or where a high level of control would be needed. Grouped seating plans on the other hand, would reduce the levels of focus on the teacher as student will be more likely to discuss problems with each other, and therefore my lend themselves to lessons that are more interactive and require less control over the students. Martin, 2002; Patton, Snell, Knight, & Gerken, 2001 both found that column seating layouts increased the focus on the teacher and grouped seating layouts comprising of four tables gave the students a more ‘community feel’ and therefore encouraged participation. It could also be suggested that students can read the layout of the classroom and predetermine the levels of interaction that is required for the lesson. This would be picked up by nonverbal communication, through sensing the physical layout of the classroom. If this is true then this is a tool that the teacher could use to their advantage. On the other hand if it is true it could have detrimental effects on the lesson if the teacher was not aware of the effects of a poor classroom layout. Because the students are fixed in one place in the classroom they can often feel powerless, the teacher will usually have the ability to move freely around the classroom and the ability to control the physical layout of the classroom. Maria Montessori describes teachers as environmental managers. If this is the case then teachers should understand the effects that the environment will have on their students and the possible negative and positive effects that it could have on their students performance. Students affect the physical environment primarily through their use of it, the placement and orientation of their bodies as physical and social objects. Asking students directly about the physical environment and their feelings towards the physical environment is the easiest, quickest, and most accurate way for the students to affect changes to the classroom, identify their opinions and feelings, and share their views on improving the layout of the classroom for the benefit of the class It could also be argued that the situation for the students could be improved if they themselves had a certain amount of control over the layout of the room. If they had the freedom to arrange the layout of the tables as they wish this could reduce feeling of stress or anxiety amongst the students. This of course would only be possible if the students where a mature group were there was a level of trust and respect between student and teacher. Teachers including myself will regularly rely on building a student teacher relationship and pay little attention to the relationship that classroom layout will have on developing this. It is fair to say that student teacher relationship will be affected by the classroom, a room set out in an individual seating plan will have a dramatically different effect than a classroom set out in grouped or horseshoe layout. If this is the case it would suggest that physical layout of the classroom and the social layout of the classroom are factors that will effect each other. Changing one will therefore chance the other and this will then have an effect on the levels of classroom control and student interaction. As previously mentioned there may well be no one perfect classroom layout that will suit all needs, just many different layouts that will suit the needs of specific lessons. It is understandable that not all classrooms will be suited to all variations in classroom layout and therefore not able to fully maximise the potential, but I would suggest that it is still a necessity to have an understanding of what styles will work best in different scenarios. Methodology As mentioned this study examined whether classroom seating layout affected student interaction and classroom control during Command Leadership and Management courses (CLM). Seating layouts included: a) individual seating arrangements, b) horseshoe, c) grouped, and d) paired seating arrangement. The study consisted of 12 soldiers on a junior CLM course which was conducted over a period of 5days. In conducting the research I looked at two main areas; 1) social interaction and 2) classroom control. As well as this I recorded results of the students’ personal feelings and opinions of the classroom via questionnaires. I also recorded student interaction and classroom control via a student seating tick chart which was tallied by myself. To try to minimise any false reading in the results I did not tell the students of the action research at the start of the week, I incorporated the change in seating layout into the course as a means of allowing the students to work with different pupils throughout the week. To try and achieve the most accurate results regarding the students results, each student filled out a simple questionnaire at the end of each day that related to the seating arrangement to ascertain their feeling towards the seating plan. The results were recorded and collated at the end of the week and used to gauge student reaction to the various seating plans. As mentioned there were four seating arrangements, each day a new seating arrangement was implemented and the students were allowed to seat themselves where they pleased. The lessons were arranged on the course so that there was no day that had two assessments on it. This was to minimise any negative feeling towards any of the seating plans due to the nature of the lesson. Each day also had a discussion period to try to minimise any distortion of the results when it came to student interaction. Students were allowed to seat themselves where they pleased on each day of the CLM course in an attempt to minimise adding extra variables. Day one started with grouped seating plans. As there were 12 students the tables where arranged in groups of 4 tables. Spread throughout the classroom (see fig 1 for example). As i was the only instructor on the course i taught all the lessons and each time a student interacted in the class or put forward a point their position in the seating plan received a tick on the chart. This was to indicate the level of classroom interaction. For each time there was student chatter amongst them which was not student lead and not beneficial to the class a cross was put on the seating plan tick chart, this was to indicate classroom control. The same process was repeated on day two when paired seating plan was implemented, day three when the individual seating plan was implemented and day four when the horseshoe seating plan was implemented. At the end of the week the results for the seating plan tick charted there collated and tabulated. The seating plan which had the highest number of tick was assumed to be the one which was best suited for student interaction, with the one with the lowest number of tick being the one least suited to student interaction. Likewise the seating plan which had the lowest number of crosses was deemed to be the one which was most easy to control the class and the one with the highest number of crosses was deemed to be the one which was most difficult to control the class. These tabulated results can be seen in fig 2. The results from the tick chart were then compared to the feedback from the student to see if there was any correlation between the results. Results As mentioned the classroom sample consisted of 12 students of which all were male. The students were from a multi cap badge background and where of differing age, which would also indicate that they were of differing levels of experience, although no data was collected as to experience levels. Levels of experience could play a part in the amount of classroom interaction and would need to be considered in further research. Levels of experience could play a part as soldiers who have more experience would in theory have more to discuss and therefore be more interactive in lesson. You could also suggest that students with less experience would have less to discuss and therefore be less interactive. Also the levels of classroom control could have been affected as the course was a junior CLM course. Soldiers with more experience may well be more disciplined in the classroom and therefore there may be less instances of student chatter which recorded a score on the classroom control tick chart. Again this would need to be considered in future research and compared to the results of this study. The results from the seating plan tick chart would indicate that students preferred both the grouped and the horseshoe seating plan when it came to student interaction and where more negative towards the individual and paired seating plan. Both the grouped and horseshoe scored considerably higher than the individual and paired seating plan with scores of 46, 39, 34 and 32 respectively. This shows that the students where more interactive when in either grouped or horseshoe arraignments. These results correlate to previous results from Douglas and Gifford (2001) who found that students where more interactive in communal seating layouts and Marx, Fuhrer & Hartig, 1999 who found that students asked more questions when in semi circle seating arraignments. Also both horseshoe and individual received lower scores on the classroom control. They both received scores of 5 where as grouped and paired received scores of 10 and 7 respectively showing that there was more instances of student chatter where those seating plans where used. This would suggest that both horseshoe and individual seating plans were better seating arraignments for controlling the classroom. This also corrilates to research form Hastings and Schwieso, (1995) who found that ‘on task behaviour’ increased when students where in individual seating layouts. Results in table 1 Table 1 | horseshoe | individual | group | Paired | Number of students interacting | 39 | 34 | 46 | 32 | Classroom control | 5 | 5 | 10 | 7 | Also student preferences shown that they preferred the grouped and horseshoe seating plans and where less inclined to use the paired and individual seating plans. As you can see from the table below (table 2) grouped seating plan received scores of 4 for most preferred and 6 for preferred where as horseshoe seating plan scored 6 for most preferred and 4 for preferred. These results are also backed up with the student comments when asked which seating plan made you feel most at ease student responses where ‘ i felt most as ease in the horseshoe plan as if felt like a more open plan’. And ‘the horseshoe seating plan was most at ease as if felt like there was less of a barrier between the instructor and us’. Similar results were found for the grouped seating plan where students recorded results like ‘the grouped seating plan was best because you could talk to other people to see if you was right’, and ‘i preferred the grouped layout because i could talk to other people’. The comments are also as equally negative as the scores for the individual and paired seating layouts. Results show that 8 out of the 12 students scores the paired seating plan as least preferred or not preferred and 10 out of the 12 students scored the individual seating plan as least preferred or not preferred. The comments from the students further back this up and provide explanation as to why. Their comments were ‘the individual seating plan made it hard to talk to other student’, and ‘the individual seating plan made me feel isolated which made me not want to get involved in the lesson’. There were some positive results for the individual and paired seating plans. One student commented saying the ‘ the individual seating plan was better for working on assessments as it helped me to concentrate on the task and stopped me from getting distracted’. This again corresponds to previous research. Hastings and Schwieso, (1995) found that students on-task work improved when students where sat in individual or rowed seating plans. Table 2 Student preferences | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | How did you find the grouped seating plan' | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 | How did you find the paired seating plan' | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | How did you find the individual seating plan' | 5 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | How did you find the horseshoe seating plan' | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 being least preferred and 5 being most preferred. Discussion and Conclusion This study examined student interaction and classroom control and its relation to seating layout. Classroom attitude comprised of the students feeling at ease and the levels of social interaction and this was measured against four differing seating layouts a) individual seating arrangements, b) horseshoe, c) grouped, and d) paired seating arrangement (Figure 1). Although findings of this study show some significant differences between the seating plans it needs to be considered that there were many variable that were not taken into account in this study and the data size was too small to make any solid claims as to attitudes and preferences to seating plans. Also the results are not conclusive enough to make any solid claims as to the seating plans which will provide a teacher with the most student interaction of the best for classroom control, but what it will do is, is provide guidance for future research, back up previous results and provide a steer for teachers wishing to improve their teaching practice. Future research is warranted to better understand the relationships between variables. Within this section findings will be discussed in terms of future research opportunities and possible reasons for the outcomes of the study. The results of this study indicate that in the horseshoe shaped seating layout and grouped seating layout the students were able to discuss problems with other students which made them feel more at ease. The students also felt a greater sense of control in the classroom, this may be due to the fact that the students can easily see most of their other classmates in these layouts (especially horseshoe) but also the students felt empowerment in numbers. Results further revealed that students felt least at ease in the paired seating plan and individual seating plan. This may be because in these types of layouts, students sit relatively alone and do not have the comfort of working with other students. Students lack the cover of other students, meaning any points that they contribute to any discussions are open to ridicule from the whole class and not just two other groups. Also any answers that they get wrong will reflect on them individually and not on a group of students. In terms of promoting in-class discussion and encouraging group work, findings revealed that the grouped seating layout wand horseshoe seating layout as the most preferred and the individual any paired seating layout was the least preferred. With the former, students are already facing each other, making the transition between teacher-focused and student-focused activities more efficient. In a sense, students are prone to interact with one another more freely due to the fact that there is less physical maneuvering required to see other students and their reactions to what is being discussed. Furthermore, students felt less likely to interact with one another in seating layouts where all students were facing the same direction. These findings are consistent with previous studies (Patton et al., 2001; Rosenfeld et al., 1985), which found that face-to-face seating layouts encourage higher student-student interaction than layouts where all students face the teacher or the front of the classroom. Future research might include looking into classroom norms, which may offer further explanation to social interaction. This might help the teacher understand interactions between students who are familiar with each other and students who are not and therefore better understand how to get the best levels of student interaction. Also the perceptions of expected behaviour may vary according to the manner in which the seating is arranged. Students who perceive individual seating plans to be used in assessments may ask as if they were in an assessment even if they are not. Personality and learning style differences are another possible consideration. Students may be more or less prone to interact with others because the layout more or less closely matches their preferred learning style and personality. Students with auditory learning styles my well prefer to be in a grouped seating arraignment where they can discuss issues with other students. Students with Visual learning styles may well prefer horseshoe seating styles because they can see all the other students in the class. Future research could consider having a much larger group size with a more diverse group, it should also consider running the research over a range of CLM courses so to gain results from a wide range of soldiers with a range of experiences. It would also be beneficial to run one seating plan per week with the same group to reduce any variables. Finally it would be beneficial to assess the levels of interaction that the students have had before the course. Courses that have students from the same units or cap badges may well revile different results from courses that have students from differing cap badges. References Budge, D. (2000). Secret is in the seating. The Times Educational Supplement, no. 4396, pp. 26-27. Cheng, Y. (1994). Classroom environment and student affective performance: An effective profile. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(3), 221-240. Douglas, D. & Gifford, R. (2001). Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: A lens model approach. Educational Research, 43(3), 295-309. Drudy, S., & Chathain, M. (2002). Gender effects in classroom interaction: Data collection, self-analysis, and reflection. Evaluation and Research Education, 16(1), 34-50. Fassinger, P. (2000). How classes influence students' participation in college classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(2), 3847. Hastings, N. & Schwieso, J. (1995). Tasks and tables: The effects of seating arrangements on task engagement in primary classrooms. Educational Research, 37(3), 279-291. Hofkins, D. (1994). Rows of seats give a better work-rate. The Times Educational Supplement, no. 4082, p. 13. Martin, S. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 139-156. Marx, A. Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children's question asking. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 249-263. Okpala, C. (1996). Gender related differences in classroom interaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(4), 275-286. Patton, J., Snell, J., Knight, W., & Gerken, K. (2001). A survey study of elementary classroom seating designs. Annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC. Rosenfeld, P., Lambert, N., & Black, A. (1985). Desk arrangement effects on pupil classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), p. 101-108. Wolfe, J. (2000). Gender, ethnicity and classroom discourse: Communication patterns of Hispanic and White students in networked classrooms. Written Communication, 17(4), 491-519.