DESK ARRANGEMENT'S AND GRADES AND PARTICIPATION

Desk Arrangement and the affect of grades and participation

Desk Arrangement and the affect of grades and participation

Introduction

Elementary classrooms have always had desks in them, but over the years the rows of identical desks bolted to the floor have given way to more flexible configurations over which teachers have gained considerable control. How to arrange the seating in a classroom and to what ends are questions that many teachers now answer for themselves. The decision is dictated by teachers' conceptions of their role, the conditions for learning, and the appropriate means for maintaining classroom control. Various teaching goals may conflict, however. For example, common sense indicates that grouping in small clusters would heighten student interaction but also might limit teacher control and/or encourage social interactions that are not conducive to learning.

Unfortunately, the educator who chooses to consult the available literature will find little that is helpful for making decisions about how to facilitate teaching-related goals through desk arrangement. Theoretical conceptions about the role of desk arrangement in the classroom have remained global. Sommer (1977) noted that although many teachers consider the classroom layout relatively unimportant when compared with the student-teacher relationship, the physical and social systems of the classroom are inextricably interdependent. Getzels (1974) discussed how different desk arrangements presuppose differences among teachers in the ways they view students: A rectangular arrangement of fixed desks and the teacher at the front implies an empty learner to be filled with knowledge; a square arrangement with the teacher's desk at the side assumes an active learner; a circular arrangement assumes a social learner; and an open classroom assumes the stimulus-seeking learner who is a naturally curious problem finder. Getzels did not discuss the specific effects of these different desk arrangements on student behavior or consider the possibility, put into practice by many teachers, of changing seating arrangements for different purposes.

Empirical studies of the effects of desk arrangement on classroom behavior are also undifferentiated with respect to identifying particular cause-effect relationships. Zifferblatt (1972) counted the number of social comments between students and teachers during observations of two third-grade classrooms with teachers of a similar teaching style, using the same curriculum but with different seating arrangements and lessons. One classroom had from 2 to 12 desks in a cluster, and the other had 2 to 3 in a cluster. Zifferblatt found that large groups of desks facilitated social interaction but impeded individual work. He also found that barriers serving as boundaries for work and study areas impeded irrelevant verbal and visual exchanges, and that rugs in both classrooms encouraged informal interactions.

Winett, Battersby, and Edwards (1975) rearranged a sixth-grade classroom from individual one-piece chair-desks in rows to clusters of smaller desks with movable chairs in groups of eight. Each group was heterogeneous according to ability level. Along with these changes, math and reading instruction were individualized and group contingencies applied. An observational system with present coding categories was used, including eight behavior codes pertaining to the child's work activity, four behavior codes ...