Luận văn thạc sĩ VNU ULIS using different classroom seating arrangements to increase students’ on task behaviors in cooperative learning activities

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THÙY LINH

USING DIFFERENT CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS TO
INCREASE STUDENTS’ ON-TASK BEHAVIORS IN COOPERATIVE
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
(Thay đổi mơ hình sắp xếp chỗ ngồi của sinh viên để thúc đẩy sự tham gia vào những
hoạt động trong các giờ học theo phương pháp dạy học hợp tác.)
M.A MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 8140231.01

HÀ NỘI, 2019

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THÙY LINH

USING DIFFERENT CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS TO
INCREASE STUDENTS’ ON-TASK BEHAVIORS IN COOPERATIVE
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
(Thay đổi mơ hình sắp xếp chỗ ngồi của sinh viên để thúc đẩy sự tham gia vào những

hoạt động trong các giờ học theo phương pháp dạy học hợp tác.)
M.A MINOR THESIS

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Supervisor

: Prof. Hoàng Văn Vân

HÀ NỘI, 2019

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


DECLARATION
I certify that I myself write this thesis entitled “Using Different Classroom Seating
Arrangements to Increase Students’ On-Task Behaviors In Cooperative Learning
Activities”. It is not a plagiarism or made by others. Anything related to others‟ works
is written in quotation, the sources of which are listed on the list of references. If then
the pronouncement proves wrong, I am ready to accept any academic punishment,
including the withdrawal or cancellation of my academic degree.
Signature

i

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I have to thank my research supervisor, Prof. Dr. Hoang Van
Van. Without his assistance and dedicated involvement in every step throughout the
process, this study would have never been accomplished. I would like to thank him
very much for his support and understanding.
I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during
this and other related projects. Thanks to their passionate participation and input, the
validation survey could not have been successfully conducted.
Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this project than the
members of my family. I would like to thank my parents, whose love and guidance are
with me in whatever I pursue.
Once again, to my wonderful parents and my friends, thank you for supporting
and believing in me. Love you!

ii

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


ABSTRACT
Research has shown that student participation is affected by a number of factors that
include students‟ gender, personality differences as well as class environment. This
class environment includes classroom seating arrangements which are believed to play
an important role in fostering students‟ on-task behavior. However, how a seating
arrangement can encourage on-task or off-task behavior is found to depend on how far
this seating arrangement agrees with the activity being done and the interaction pattern

aimed at in class.
The purpose of this study was to determine: (1) if classroom seating arrangements
affect student on-task/off-task participation in CL activities, (2) in what ways seating
arrangements affected student participation (3) students‟ preferences of different
classroom seating arrangements, namely rows and columns and circles.
The study was mainly exploratory and qualitative using a convenience sample of two
EFL classes, of a total of 43 students. Data were collected through students‟ responses
to a questionnaire and a reflective paper. In addition, video recordings of class sessions
were also used to collect data about student on-task/off-task participation in both
seating arrangements.
Analysis of data shows seating arrangement is a priority to foster student on-task
participation in class since the videos show that students in one class were keen to
create their semi-circle shaped when seated in the rows and columns in order to work
on group activities while students in the other were subversive to the rows and columns
seating arrangement where two of the group members left their places and sat facing
the group.

iii

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................ iv
PART 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale ................................................................................................................ 1
2. Aims of the study and research questions .............................................................. 2

3. Scope of the study .................................................................................................. 3
4. Methods of the study .............................................................................................. 3
5. Design of the study ................................................................................................ 3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1: Literature review ..................................................................................... 5
1.1.

Cooperative Learning (CL): Definition and benefits ...................................... 5

1.2.

Basic classroom seating arrangements ............................................................ 6

1.3.

Classroom seating arrangement and students‟ on-task behavior ..................10

1.4.

Students‟ and teacher‟s role and classroom arrangement .............................12

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................16
2.1. Setting and Participants ....................................................................................16

iv

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


2.2.

Procedure .......................................................................................................16

2.3.

Data analysis .................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................21
3.1.

Questionnaire ................................................................................................21

3.2.

Video .............................................................................................................25

3.3.

Ten minutes paper .........................................................................................36

3.4.

Discussion .....................................................................................................41

PART 3: CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................46
1. Recapitulation ......................................................................................................46
2. Teaching implications ..........................................................................................46
3. Limitations ...........................................................................................................47
4. Suggestions for further research ..........................................................................47
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................49

APPENDICIES ................................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX A: Free form Questionnaire .................................................................... I
APPENDIX B: Ten-minute paper ............................................................................... II
APPENDIX C: List of Codes ..................................................................................... III
APPENDIX D: Students’ responses to Questions 2 and 3 on the questionnaire...... IV
CLASS 1 ................................................................................................................. IV

v

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


CLASS 2 ................................................................................................................. VI
APPENDIX E: Students’ responses to Question 1 on the reflection pape .................X
CLASS 1 ...................................................................................................................X
CLASS 2 .................................................................................................................XII
APPENDIX F: Students’ preferences in both the questionnaire and the 10-minute
paper .......................................................................................................................... XV
CLASS 1 ................................................................................................................ XV
CLASS 2 ............................................................................................................... XVI

vi

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figures

Content

Page

Figure 1

Row seating

7

Figure 2

Cluster seating

8

Figure 3

U-shape/horseshoe and circle seating

9

Figure 4

Students' responses to Question 1 about talkativeness (Class 1)

22

Figure 5

Students' responses to Question 1 about talkativeness (Class 2)

22

Figure 6

Students' responses to Question 2 about seating arrangement

23

preferences in questionnaire and 10-minute paper
Figure 7

Number of turns and comments for each student

27

Figure 8

Number of comments made by students in Class 1 in each

29

category (in number)
Figure 9

Number of Turns (Class 1)

30

Figure 10

Number of turns, comments for each student (Class 2: circles)

33

Figure 11

Number of comments made by students in Class 2 in each

33

category
Figure 12

Students' seating arrangement preferences in questionnaire and

38

10-minute paper (in %)
Tables

Content

Page

Table 1

Reasons for choosing both seating arrangement (both classes)

24

Table 2

Number of comments in each video

28

Table 3

Reasons for students' preferences for seating arrangements in

40

the 10-minute paper

vii

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
According to Cornell (2003:1), for a long time, the term “classroom” was
characterized as a rectangular room where the focus was directed to the front where the
instructor exercised complete control of the pace, content, and sequence of activities by
using a blackboard and an overhead projector. However, the traditional style of
instruction, where the teacher delivers the information and students sit silently taking
notes, is slowly being replaced with student-centered learning (Nair, 2000). This
implies that the traditional type of seating arrangement (desk rows) should be
substituted by more flexible ones, such as U-shape, modular or circular to foster

interaction among students themselves, support communication with teachers, and
motivate individual students to learn. Halpern (1994) share the same thoughts with
Nair (2000) that effective learning rarely occurs passively. Therefore, educators have
come to realize that effective instruction focuses on active involvement of students in
their own learning, with opportunities for teacher and peer interactions that engage
students‟ natural curiosity (Halpern, 1994:11).
McCorskey & McVetta (1978) claim that classroom seating arrangements are
the most important part of establishing the physical classroom environment. A good
classroom seating arrangement will set the overall atmosphere, or mood and further the
stage for teacher student relationships. When considering that classroom seating
arrangements are organized by teachers into logical, methodical design structures that
best facilitate student learning and make use of the teacher‟s individual teaching style,
problems can arise when teachers do not choose their seating arrangements carefully
and meaningfully (O‟Hare, 1998).
However, it may be hard for teachers to choose a certain seating arrangement,
the problem that frequently surfaces is this: what classroom seating arrangement is the
most effective. Undoubtedly, this works under the proposition that there are some
seating arrangements that are more effective than others (McCorskey & McVetta,
1

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


1978). In other words, there are seating arrangements that do more harm than good for
a teacher wishing to establish rules, standards, and regulations on the first day that last
through the remaining time he/she has with a given set of students. If these most basic
needs are not met – that is, establishing boundaries for students based on the schematic
structure of the classroom‟s seating – then it presents challenges for the teacher‟s
effectiveness (Becker, Sommer, Bee, & Oxley, 1973).
From my point of view, the most important thing here to consider is that the

effectiveness of classroom seating arrangement is a measurable, observable
phenomenon, since there are underlying factors that allow certain arrangements to
work better than others (Cooperative Research Program, 1965). In a way, to consider
“effectiveness” means to think about correlation: comparing several possible seating
arrangements with respect to the common data inherent in each. Though
“effectiveness” is always relative to the teacher‟s teaching style, the size of the class,
and other elements of the physical classroom that no teacher nor any one seating
arrangement can control (i.e. where the door or windows are located, where the teacher
might situate their desk, if there are any built-in bookshelves or free-standing ones, and
the placement and size of chalkboard/white board in the wall), the purpose of this study
is to show, through the appropriation of measurable student-specific and observable
teacher-related data, that there are, indeed, certain classroom seating arrangements that
are theoretically more effective.
2. Aims of the study and research questions
The aim of this study is to explore two elements in relation to classroom seating
arrangements. The first element is students‟ preferences for different seating
arrangements and the reasons for their choices. The second one is students‟ ontask/off-task participation in two different seating arrangements, the rows and columns
and the circles.
To achieve the above overarching aim, the study raises three questions for exploration:
Question 1: Does classroom seating arrangement affect students‟ on-task/off-task
2

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


participation in cooperative learning activities?
Question 2: If so, in what ways do classroom seating arrangements affect students‟ ontask/off-task behavior?
Question 3: What preferences do students have for different classroom seating
arrangements? And why?
3. Scope of the study

Although there are various seating arrangements for lecture halls, classrooms
and laboratories, this study focuses on four basic types of classroom seating
arrangements. They are: desk rows, U-shape, modular and circular.
The study is conducted within the investigation and the application of classroom
seating arrangements in academic setting at Vietnam National University of
Agriculture in Hanoi with English classes as sample.
Finally, it is ideal to apply other universities, where different seating
arrangements are available. Due to time constraint, geographical distance, financial
difficulty and the scope of a minor thesis, the data used in this study are collected only
by conducting survey questionnaires and based on the author‟s observation and
experience. Therefore, the thesis should only be regarded as a preliminary study with
tentative conclusions.
4. Methods of the study
The theoretical background presents a critical review of different publications.
The source of relevant information comes from books and the Internet.
The method used for the study is largely quantitative with illustration of tables.
The discussions of research findings are based mainly on the statistics of the survey
questionnaires.
Comments on the statistics come from consultation with the supervisor,
discussion with colleagues and the author‟s personal observation as well as her own
experience.
5. Design of the study
3

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


The study consists of three main parts:
Part I: Introduction.
In this part, the rationale, aims and scope of the study are presented along with

methodology and design of the study. This gives the reader the basic knowledge and
overall structure of the study.
Part II: Development - This part includes the following chapters.
Chapter 1: Literature review
Chapter 2: Methodology
Chapter 3: Results
Chapter 4: Discussion
The second part is the main focus of the study, it summarizes the related
researches and background theories; explains the procedure of conducting the study
then address the results. Finally, the author analyze the data and give some opinions
based on the outcome.
Part III: Conclusion
This part restates and summarizes the main points of this study as well as
discuss the teaching implications and some notes for future researchers.

4

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Literature review
Plenty of researches was found in the area of Cooperative Learning (CL) and
how teachers could make use of this technique in language classrooms. However,
limited research was found on how to use suitable seating arrangements that could fit
this CL teaching method (Cornell, 2002; Kennedy, 2002). Most of the studies found in
the field of seating arrangement and classroom furniture either focused on students‟ ontask behavior in relation to different seating arrangements (Anderson, 2009; Bonus &
Riordan, 1998; McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Rosenfield, Lambert & Black, 1985) or
discussed classroom ecology (Becker, Sommer, Bee, & Oxley, 1973; Savanur, Altekar
& De, 2007).

1.1.

Cooperative Learning (CL): Definition and benefits

CL is defined by Slavin (1980) and Tuan (2010) as teaching and “instructional”
techniques where students are put into groups to work on a certain activity in order to
encourage student‟s interaction, thus, maximizing student learning. In their definition
of CL, Allen (2006) and Yamarik (2007) agree that CL should be characterized by
individual responsibility and positive interdependence among students while working
on group activities together. Totten (1991) stressed differentiating between the idea of
group work and cooperative learning as a teaching/learning technique. He explained
that CL was more than just students put into groups for an activity. On the contrary, he
agreed with Allen (2006) that CL involved direct interaction among students, having
heterogeneous groups and a practice of social skills (Totten, 1991). Benefits of CL
include enhancing cognitive growth of students, increasing students‟ motivation and
self-confidence in addition to maximizing students‟ interaction (Allen, 2006; Bandiera
& Bruno, 2006; Tuan, 2010).
Differences between CL and other group work patterns were introduced by
Johnson and Johnson (1999). They said there were four types of group work: pseudo
learning group, traditional classroom learning group, cooperative learning group, and
5

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


high-performance cooperative learning group. In the first category, Johnson and
Johnson (1999) explain, students are not interested in working in groups because, in
most cases, they are aware that they will be individually evaluated. The second
category, however, is when students are assigned to work in groups and they accept
that they have to work on the activity together. The third and fourth categories are

when students are aware of the benefits of CL and all members of the group work
towards accomplishing common goals. A major difference is that the fourth category
“out-performs” due to students‟ exceptional devotion to their group while working on
the activity (Johnson & Johnson, 1999)
1.2.

Basic classroom seating arrangements

Classrooms are the places where educational activities are conducted at the
highest. In arranging the classrooms such factors as the number of students, quality and
color of the walls and furniture, inside temperature, illumination, air-conditioning,
cleanness and the arrangement of the students in the classroom have an indirect but
important effects on their levels of learning. With one glance at a classroom, an
experienced teacher can tell you what kind of class takes place in that room.
Effective communication in the classroom is essential to the success of both the
students and the teachers. The kind of communication as well as the amount of
communication that occurs in the classroom has long been thought to be partially a
function of the seating arrangement of students. While there probably is an infinite
number of ways of arranging a classroom, there are most common: traditional,
horseshoe, and modular.
As mentioned in the previous section, there are three seating arrangements that
were significant in managing student behavior. According to Weinstein (1979), due to
the lack of space within a classroom, teachers are generally limited to using three
classroom seating arrangements; row seating, cluster seating, and horseshoe seating.

6

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add

Figure 1: Row seating

In row seating, desks are place in either vertical or horizontal straight lines.
Research in the row seating arrangement showed both positive and negative effects on
student behavior. According to Atherton (2005), when students are placed in rows it is
convened that students should be passive learners and are only meant to be seen and
not heard in the classroom. Hastings and Schweiso (1995) found that the row seating
arrangement improved on-task behavior and that the behavior of students who were the
most disruptive improved while sitting in this arrangement. Lam and Wheldall (1987)
found positive behavior from students who were seated in rows, in fact their on-task
behaviors doubled.
However, a study done by Rosenfield, et al. (1985) found an increase in off-task
behavior when using the row seating arrangement in a fifth grade class. Rosenfield, et
al. (1985) also acknowledged that row seating was not a favorable arrangement to
improve student off-task behaviors and found it to be the least effective. In another
study that focused primarily on seating arrangement and students asking questions,
Marx, Further and Hartig (2000) found that students ask their teacher more questions
when were arranged in row seating. Rual and Wannarka (2008) indicated that a class‟
seating arrangement should be based on the particular activities that the students are
engaged in at the moment. Rual and Wannarka (2008) also added that if students are
7

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


working on independent or individual assignments, they should be seating in an
arrangement that would create less interaction with their peers, such as row seating.

Figure 2: Cluster seating

This seating has a group of four desks touching each other on the same
horizontal lines and the right and left vertical lines of the desk which is also known as
group seating. These clusters provide safe and comfortable environments for students
to share ideas. However, it also lends itself to off-task behavior and large increase in
noise level and distractions. Rosenfield, et al. (1985) found that cluster seating had a
positive effect on social interaction and that more students were actively participating
during class discussions. According to Papalia (1994), cluster seating allows student to
participate in remedial activities, games, and promotes peer assistance. Marx, et al.
(2000), noted that cluster seating fostered an environment that allowed interact with
one another because of their close proximity. Atherton (2005) discusses that cluster
seating can foster an active and engaging learning environment.

8

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


Figure 3: U-shape/horseshoe and Circle seating

The final seating arrangement is horseshoe seating or u-shaped seating. Desks
are arranged in a way that resembles like a horseshoe. According to Wengal (1992), in
this seating arrangement there was an elevated amount of talking from the students.
But on the other hand this seating arrangement allowed teacher‟s lesson to be more
engaging for students. This seating arrangement promoted participation and
appropriate behavior. Papalia (1994) established that the horseshoe seating
arrangement allowed students to be able to pay attention to the teacher, make eye
contact, and allowed the teacher to have control of the class. Rosenfield, et al., (1985)
acknowledged that if teachers wanted their students to interact more during class
discussion, horseshoe seating arrangement is the best design to be considered.
Based on classroom design, a student‟s behavior can be affected in either a

positive or negative way. According to Black (2007), poor seating arrangements can
affect students‟ learning by 50%. Therefore, in order for a teacher to create a learning
environment that is conducive for all learners, classroom arrangement has to be taking
into consideration. Making small changes such as moving desks to improve behavior
and foster learning, is minimal when compared to other drastic interventions that are
being used to remove problematic students. Additionally, classroom modifications are
sometimes needed and can result in a more positive classroom environment for
teachers and students. As a result, teachers can teach effectively and student
9

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


performance can be enhanced.
1.3.

Classroom seating arrangement and students’ on-task behavior

Research shows that classroom seating arrangement could affect students‟
behavior (Anderson, 2009; Bonus & Riordan, 1998; “classroom configuration,” 2006;
Kaya & Burgess, 2007; Lei, 2010; Philpott, 1993; Rosenfield et al., 1985; Wannarka &
Ruhl, 2008). It is believed that spatial arrangements in classrooms where students have
enough space to move and work on their activities positively affect students‟ on-task
behavior and social interaction (Kaya & Burgess, 2007). Baron (1992) believed that
seating arrangements should be treated as a priority when thinking of a classroom with
maximum on-task behavior. Wannarka and Ruhl (2008) explained that deciding
whether students‟ behavior is on-task or not depends, to a great extent, on the nature of
the activity and the desired communication pattern inside the class. They gave the
example that if teachers want to guarantee on-task behavior during individual work,
they should arrange their classroom furniture in rows and columns so as to minimize

student-student interaction. However, if the purpose of the class is to have interaction
among the students and the teacher, it would be better to let students sit either in a Ushape or in circles (Bennet & Blundell, 1983; Hastings & Schweiso, 1995; Rosenfield
et al., 1985). Bonus and Riordan (1998) further highlighted this idea that the
effectiveness of any seating arrangement depends on the activity done in class.
On-task behavior, according to Rosenfield et al. (1985) and Wannarka and Ruhl
(2008), includes actions done towards working on the activity at hand as well as any
verbal or physical action that builds towards the contribution to the class activity.
These verbal and physical actions include students raising their hands to ask a question
regarding the activity or commenting and/or discussing a certain element that leads to
the completion of the activity. On the other hand, off task behavior includes instances
where students talk out of turn or move around the class without permission or with no
purpose (Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). Downer, Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta (2007) believe
that effective learning takes place when the classroom design “fosters student
10

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


engagement.” By studying three different seating arrangements, rows and columns,
clusters and circles, and their effect on students‟ classroom behavior, Rosnefield et al.
(1985) found that sitting in circles encouraged more student on-task behavior and oral
response among students and between the students and the teacher than did the rows
and columns.
In their study on the effect of classroom seating arrangement on students‟
behavior, Rosenfield et al. (1985) observed three experimental classrooms of fifth and
sixth grades during class discussions in rows, clusters and circles. They observed
certain behaviors like hand-raising, listening, discussion comments, on-task out-oforder comments, oral responses, as well as withdrawal and off-task behaviors. Major
results of their research showed that there were no significant differences in listening,
discussion comments and disruptive behaviors as related to the different seating
arrangements. However, Rosenfield et al. (1985) have shown that the circles desk

arrangement resulted in a greater number of on-task, out-of-order response and on task
behaviors than did the rows and columns. At the same time, clusters resulted in a great
number of on-task behaviors and more hand-raising than did the rows. The number of
withdrawal and off-task behaviors was much greater in the rows and columns setting
than those resulted in the circles.
By examining the U-shape seating arrangement and its effect on students‟
interaction, Wengel (1992) found that this arrangement enabled teachers to have a
more active and collaborative class where students were able to interact with the
teacher as well as with each other. Wengel (1992) added that this could be considered
evidence that the U-shape arrangement contributed to students‟ on-task behavior
which, in turn, enhanced their learning since, in this arrangement, students get the
opportunity to share information and exchange ideas, thus, maximizing their learning
space. Similarly, the cluster arrangement was reported to be suitable for selfinstructional material and grouping of students according to their needs and interests
(Papalia, 1994 as cited in Bonus & Riordan, 1998). Papalia (1994) added that the rows
11

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


and columns setting best suits individual activities, testing and introducing new
material to the students (As cited in Bonus & Riordan, 1998). This, in fact, conforms to
the idea that the teacher is encouraged to use a seating arrangement where students can
actually see each other if he/she aims at student-student interaction.
In his study, Wengel (1992) investigated the factors influencing teachers‟
choices of seating arrangements and what the best seating arrangement to use was. The
study depended on observing four teachers in the 1st – 4th grades and interviewing
them. Teachers participating in the study used the horseshoe, rows and columns and
clusters settings for the first, second and third grades respectively. The fourth grade
teacher used a random arrangement (researcher did not describe how this arrangement
looked like exactly). Teachers‟ interviews covered topics like teachers‟ backgrounds,

classroom activities, type of instruction used, and teachers‟ opinions of seating
arrangements. Class observations focused on monitoring students‟ behavior in different
furniture arrangements. Analysis of these observations included whether students were
on-task or off-task, at the desk or not and whether they were working alone or not.
Wengel (1992) stated that there was no one seating arrangement that was better
than the other. He has explained that choosing a seating arrangement should be based
on the class needs, the interaction patterns aimed at and the teaching styles. In fact,
results of both Rosenfield et al. (1985) and Wengel (1992) conform to what classroom
management books claim that when seated facing each other, students get a better
chance to interact and adopt more on-task behaviors.
1.4.

Students’ and teacher’s role and classroom arrangement

Teachers and students alike have different views and ideas about their roles
inside the class. Lam and Lawrence (2002) explained that the teacher, in most cases, is
viewed as being responsible for everything in class. Teachers are the one who decided
what to teach and how to teach it (Lam & Lawrence, 2002, p. 296). Accordingly,
deciding on a specific seating arrangement depends on the teacher‟s beliefs and what
he/she thinks his/her role inside the class is. Accordingly, a teacher who believes in
12

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


having a teacher centered class is likely to adopt the rows and columns setting where
students‟ attention is directed to him/her and where minimum student-student
interaction is allowed (Kaya & Burgess, 2007; Rosenfield et al., 1985).
Based on this concept, Sommer (1967) said that, in a rows and columns
classroom, students sitting in the front rows are more likely to participate than those

sitting at the back due to their proximity to the teacher. Becker et al. (1973) had a study
on students‟ participation in different classroom sizes and arrangements. Major results
revealed that students in the small rows and columns classes participated more than
those in larger classes. On the other hand, students in laboratory classes experienced
more interaction among all members of the class including the teacher who followed
the pattern of “walk and comment” while moving among students to discuss their
performance and follow up with their projects (Becker et al., 1973). Despite their
interesting results, Becker et al. (1973) did not explain exactly how the seats in the
laboratory class were arranged. Becker et al.‟s (1973) study was interested in
examining the amount of student participation in classrooms of different sizes and
different seating arrangements. The first part of this study dealt with measuring student
participation in a regular rows and columns, lecture-based classroom. Student
participation was measured in terms of time. It was found that students had more
opportunity to participate in classes of small size (6 – 20 students). Becker et al. (1973)
reported that when they tried to change the traditional rows and columns arrangement
to a circular one, students changed it immediately before the teacher came to class and
restored the arrangement back to the rows and columns. Only one class accepted the
circular setting which resulted in more student participation.
As introduced by Lam and Lawrence (2002), the teacher‟s role diminishes if the
class is more student-centered. In their study on variations in teacher‟s and students‟
roles in a computer-based project in a Spanish class, Lam and Lawrence (2002)
collected data through class observations, student focus groups, students and teacher‟s
questionnaire and teacher‟s interviews. A class of 33 university students of Spanish as
13

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


a Foreign Language participated in the study. Students were asked to work on a class
project in pairs where they had to create a webpage using Netscape Composer

software. Students were given a handout about how to get started with the software and
were then encouraged to learn how to use the software through trial and error. The
teacher was present during all class time while students were working on the project
and there was also a co-researcher acting as a technical advisor because the teacher was
not familiar with the software. Both the students and the teacher responded to a
questionnaire before the beginning of the study about their ideas regarding their roles
in the classroom. Two observers were present during the project. After the project
ended, students were given another questionnaire to collect their feedback on the
project and its effectiveness.
Results of Lam and Lawrence‟s (2002) study showed that although neither the
teacher‟s nor the students‟ roles hugely changed, both of them were aware, towards the
end of the study, of the “fluidity of their classroom” (p. 295). Although, in the
beginning of the experiment, it was noted that students depended on the teacher as a
main source of information, they started to consult each other and depend more on one
another by the end of the experiment which highlighted the teacher‟s role as a
facilitator rather than a source of knowledge.
Johnson and Johnson (1999) also stressed the fact that cooperative learning
techniques best work when students are well trained to work in groups. They added that
teachers need to have set objectives and directions concerning students‟ learning outcomes,
grouping methods, and assessment plans before integrating CL activities in their classes
Conclusion
Literature about cooperative learning stresses the concept that students
interacting together while working on group activities encourages more learning as
well as developing social skills that will help students in an out-of-the-class context.
Findings of this literature about seating arrangements show that when students sit
facing each other, they have a better opportunity to talk to each other which helps them
14

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add

develop on-task behavior (Rosenfield et al., 1985; Sommer, 1967). However, other
findings show that there is not much difference in the quality of student learning
(Adams, 2009) or the students‟ and teacher‟s roles (Lam & Lawrence, 2002). This is in
addition to the findings that both gender and personality differences highly affect
student participation in class. In addition, none of the studies mentioned in this chapter
offered a sample of the activity done in class while trying different seating
arrangements which could be counted as one major variable that could affect students‟
participation.
This study aims to explore this area of seating arrangements and students‟
participation while working on CL activities in EFL classes within the Vietnamese
context. In addition, there is a gap in research where the area of student preferences in
relation to seating arrangements has not been examined while monitoring students‟
actual participation rate in CL activities. For this reason, a focus on student
participation in relation to seating arrangement as well as to their personal preferences
is needed.

15

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add


CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
Because of the condition of the place where the study took place, it can only
focus on examining students‟ participation while working on in-class cooperative
learning activities in two different seating arrangements; rows and columns and circles.
It looked at the quality of students‟ comments to see whether different seating
arrangements contributed to students‟ completion of the task or not. In this chapter, a
full description of the data collection methods and data analysis tools is also presented
2.1. Setting and Participants

The study took place in Vietnam National University of Agriculture in Gia Lam
district, Hanoi city. The majority of students have been learning English since they
were in lower secondary schools. This means by the time they enter university, they
have at least 7 or more years of experience in learning English. Their secondary years
were spent with the new textbooks and the two aspects: learner-centered approach and
communicative language teaching (CLT). When it comes to English lessons, the school
divides students into four groups or levels. The students who are in the first group are
the most competent in English and vice versa.
A total of 43 students participated in this research. Participants were enrolled in
the second level of English. Two classes were selected randomly to participate in the
study over a period of three weeks. Class 1 had 16 students (3 males and 13 females)
and was taught by the researcher while Class 2, with 27 students (5 males and 22
females) was taught by another teacher. Most students in two classes are not good at
listening and speaking the target language but they can do written exercises on English
grammar accurately. They do not feel confident in communicating in English and
many of them still keep silent and do not participate in the activities of lessons.
2.2.

Procedure

Both classes met twice a week for about two hour each. Classes usually met in a
regular rows and columns classroom where the seats were bolted to the floor. For this
study, participating students had their classes in two different settings; the regular
16

LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add