Skip to main content

Classrooms or learning spaces?

Chris Harte has posted some pictures of the classrooms in his department. Very interesting, though I have to say that it is not a pattern I would opt for with our particular pupils. Over the years, like many other teachers, I have experimented with different table and chair arrangements: group tables, horse shoes, traditional rows or even a combination of rows and a central horsehoe. We now use traditional rows and create a horseshoe for smaller groups, usually A-level.

Have a look at Chris's pictures and commentary:

http://chrisharte.typepad.com/learner_evolution_chris_h/2010/04/learning-spaces-or-classrooms.html

I like the presence of the computers, though in this case pupils have to share, so, although collaboration is encouraged (can be good), less work may get done (bad). The obvious problem with group tables is the one of sight lines to the teacher and the board. If you believe that a good deal of teaching should be teacher-led, then rows may make better sense. In any case, pupils can quickly turn sideways or around to create pairs and groups.

The question of seating arrangements is a fundamental one, of course, since it is associated with methodology. If you believe that progress is best achieved with teacher instruction, whole class response, pair and individual work, then rows or similar (e.g. horseshoes) may still make sense. If you believe that there are broader educational issues to do with collaboration, teacher as facilitator, problem solving etc, then a group table arrangement may suit. If your classes respond better to group working than teacher-led approaches, then group tables may make sense. I guess you have to lay out a room in a way that suits your teaching style and the pupils' learning style.

My own experience with above average aptitude secondary children leads me to conclude that traditional rows make sense. If I had room for concentric horseshoes, then that also works well and allows pupils to be better seen and heard by their peers. Kids being kids, if they are sitting in a group facing away from the teacher, they are more likely to waste time, aren't they?

As for the computers, well, one per table in every room would be ideal, but failing that, a 30 station separate room, easy to book, works fine.

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this.

Comments

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).

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g