Since the reopening of schools in September, classroom seating has, as many know, reverted to rows and columns of desks, and I am interested in whether there is a discernible change in student engagement, behaviour and attainment as a result. Here are my responses to a questionnaire about this… I haven’t included the questions but you can follow the gist.
Students make poor choices without a structured seating plan; friendship groups and distractions rather than positive aspects of collaborative teamwork or peer assistance. Seating in rows is not conducive to creativity in a creative arts setting as we often work with peer ideas and engagement. Students will observe others’ creative behaviours and adapt for their own needs and ability. In rows, they see little of others’ work (only peers on either sides). A happy medium is when there is a structure for seating that can account for a range of abilities in a seating group. This is best of both worlds as students learn to socialise/make new friends, maintain focus without peer pressure distractions and make a visual adjustment to their own work due to the ‘zone of influence’.
Quite unresponsive in present structures in rows; students at the back of class are currently the older students (we are seated youngest to eldest), they are currently hiding in plain sight and do not volunteer answers. Mos responses to questions are coming from the front or proximal to teacher if they are able to circulate a little (if the room allows adequate space). A random name generator is beneficial to engage with students hiding or settling at the back.
Many seem turned off to their lessons in an unusual way; reticence from previous years (the ‘cba’ attitude) is less engaged with some students (&, 8 and 9 mainly). Behaviour of some is become deformalised; they are not as used to the formal structures of a school society – even if present physically during lockdown, staff relationships were less formal. Attainment is mixed; some worked hard and continue to do so – others see less point especially if not their chosen interest. The perception of time in 11-16 years is distorted by the brevity of their existence, 3 months off school has seemed like a lifetime and now they are returning to a normal that isn’t necessarily a pay off. I have witnessed students (younger ages) who have refused to do work that is set because ‘they don’t want to’. When pointed out that it isn’t a choice, they still don’t want to complete it and refuse. Home informal behaviour based on choices of creative activity have influenced how some students see formal education activity. Current seating structures have placed together some individuals who will endeavour joint disruption or disengagement. Year 8 in particular are currently on a late lunch; lessons either side of this are a battle of wits in terms of toilet visits. One-in one-out has become a policy in creative arts to prevent meeting up at toilets and corridor disruptions.
Yes; certainly, split apart ‘bad’ groupings. If a group has several disengaged/disruptive individuals, they need to be spread around the room not near each other. Six weekly moving around also helps to avoid settling and coasting.
Many of the more useful AfL strategies are difficult to employ in rows and without mixing. Team structures (such as asking one to speak on behalf of four) are impossible and transferable skills more difficult in rows if students cannot see a range of creative outcomes based on similar initial starting points. Strategies that work: teacher selection of a students work and class activity to coach for improvement in technical aspects, a 4 times better grid that can passed down a row for additional support based on a gallery of students’ work.
@damoward 