nonverbal communication study on the application of classroom seating arrangements in academic setting at Hanoi School of Public Health Nghiên cứu giao tiếp phi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ THU TRANG


A NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION STUDY
ON THE APPLICATION OF
CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS
IN ACADEMIC SETTING
AT HANOI SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
(NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO TIẾP PHI NGÔN TỪ VỀ VIỆC ÁP DỤNG
CÁC CÁCH SẮP XẾP CHỖ NGỒI TRONG LỚP HỌC
TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC Y TẾ CÔNG CỘNG)


M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Course: 15

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. NGUYEN QUANG (Ph.D.)




HANOI - 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………… ….1
I. Rationale…………………………………………………………………………………… 1
II. Aims of the study……………………………………………………………………………3
III. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………………. ………3
IV. Methods of the study……………………………………………………………. 3
V. Design of the study………………………………………………………………………… 4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………… 5
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………… 5
I.1. What nonverbal communication? 5
I.2. Classroom communication styles and classroom seating arrangements………… 7
I.2.1. Teaching styles……………………………………………………………… 7
I.2.2. Seating arrangements and teacher-student interactions…………………………………… 9
I.2.3. Basic classroom seating arrangements……………………………………………………….11
I.2.4. Evaluation of classroom seating arrangements………………………………………… …21
CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………23
II.1. Comments on the survey questionnaires……………………………………………… 23
II.2. Comments on the informants…………………………………………………………….24
CHAPTER III: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS………………………………………… 25
III.1. The proxemics of classroom seating arrangement………………………………………26
III.1.1. The physical environment…………………………………………………………………… 26
III.1.2. The social environment……………………………………………………………………… 29
III.2. The application of classroom seating arrangements in ELT classes at Hanoi School of
Public Health………………………………………………………………………… 31
III.2.1. Students responses…………………………………………………………………………… 32
III.2.2. Teachers’ responses……………………………………………………………………………33
PART III: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………35
I. Summary of main findings………………………………………………………………….35

II. Limitations……………………………………………………………………………… 36
III. Suggestions for further study…………………………………………………………… 36
IV. Implications……………………………………………………………………………….37
LIST OF TABLES

Tables

Content
Page
Table 1
The teachers’ perceptions of teaching styles used
25
Table 2
The students’ perceptions of physical environment in traditional
lecture-style classrooms
27
Table 3
The teachers’ perceptions of physical environment in traditional
lecture-style classrooms
28
Table 4
The students’ perceptions of social environment in traditional
lecture-style classrooms
29
Table 5
The teachers’ perceptions of social environment in traditional
lecture-style classrooms
30
Table 6
The students’ perceptions of the application of different classroom

seating arrangements for different teaching styles
32


1
PART I: INTRODUCTION


I. Rationale


It has now been widely accepted that the physical environment plays an important
role in the learning and teaching process. Cornell (2003) holds that the shift from passive
learning to active learning requires students to be physically and mentally more
uninterrupted, sitting is becoming a more engaged process where students are allowed
“greater movement and positioning” (Cornell, 2003:3). Cornell believes that this more
engaged process of learning reduces or eliminates drowsiness and muscle fatigue.
However, no research has provided evidence of whether or not and how the physical
arrangement of seating supports the interaction and the efforts of students and the teacher.
Moreover, Sommer (1967) finds that the seating position that a student selects in a
general-purpose classroom is highly correlated with his/her participation in the class.

For decades, 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” (Cornell, 2003:1) 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 replaced 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)
also agrees with Nair (2000) that effective learning rarely occurs passively. As a result,
“educators have come to realize that effective instruction focuses on active involvement of

2
students in their own learning, with opportunities for teacher and peer interactions that
engage students’ natural curiosity” (Halpern, 1994:11).
Wolff (2002) states that in addition to more student-centered learning that current
literature indicates a need for changing learning expectations to prepare students for the
changing roles and responsibilities in work, family and community for the 21st century.
She discovers that cooperative, project-based learning is identified as a pedagogy that
prepares learners for these new expectations by “conceiving, developing, and
implementing projects relevant to the learners’ needs.” (Wolff, 2002:3) Through
collaborative and project-based education, students have a means to learn critical thinking,
problem solving, teamwork, negotiation skills, and how to take responsibility for their own
learning. In 2002, Wolff conducted a study on design features of the physical learning
environment that support and enhance cooperative, project-based learning at the
community college level. She found that all of the participants stated the need for
flexibility in spaces used for cooperative and project based learning, i.e. the classrooms.

Of the thesis author‟s training institution, Hanoi School of Public Health has a
history of 9 years. It is a new school with a new major in Vietnam. However, public heath
is popular in almost all developed countries. Most subjects such as epidemiology,
environment, population, disaster, accidents and injuries, reproductive health, occupational
health use course books and documents translated from English. Therefore, English
language teaching and learning at this school is considered one of the top priorities.
Moreover, many lecturers have graduated from world-famous universities, thus, having a
lot of opportunities to experience different methods of teaching and different ways of
seating arrangement. The Dean of the school, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Vu Anh, was one of the
first Vietnamese medical workers to study public health in the United States. He has

offered good advice on rearranging students in a language lesson to make it more
effective. Actually, this has become a practical and necessary demand for a new classroom
environment.

3

II. Aims of the study

The study aims at:
 Reviewing and discussing different teaching styles and seating arrangements.
 Investigating the effects of seating arrangements on the socio-physical environment of
the classroom.
 Discussing possible seating arrangements for various class activities at Hanoi School
of Public Health.

III. Scope of the study

There are various seating arrangements for lecture halls, classrooms and laboratories.
However, this study focuses on four basic types of classroom seating arrangements. They are:
desk rows, U-shape, modular and circular.
The thesis is confined within the investigation and the application of classroom seating
arrangements in academic setting at Hanoi School of Public Health with English classes as
sample.
Finally, it is ideal to travel to developed countries such as the United States, where
different seating arrangements are available, to take photographs, record or videotape some
lectures as materials for the research. 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.

IV. 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.

4
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.

V. Design of the study

The study consists of three main parts:
Part I: Introduction
Part II: Development – This part includes the following chapters.
Chapter I: Literature review
Chapter II: Methodology
Chapter III: Findings and discussions
Part III: Conclusion

5

PART II: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW


I.1. What nonverbal communication?

The term “non-verbal” is commonly used to describe all events of human
communication that transcend spoken or written words. According to Knapp (1980),
nonverbal communication should not be studied as an isolated unit but as an inseparable part
of the total communication process. Nonverbal communication may serve to repeat,
contradict, substitute for, complement or elaborate on, accent or emphasize, or regulate verbal
communication. Obviously, nonverbal communication is important because of the role it plays
in the total communication system, the tremendous quantity of information cues it gives in any
particular situation and because of its use in such fundamental areas of our daily life as
politics, medicine, the arts, advertising, television, education, job interviews, and courtship. It
has been said, for example, that when we receive contradictory messages on verbal and
nonverbal levels, we are more likely to trust the nonverbal message. It is assumed that
nonverbal signals are more spontaneous, harder to fake and less apt to be manipulated. It has
also been speculated that those who prefer nonverbal cues over verbal ones show a right-brain
dominance. Estimates have it that, in a normal two-person conversation, the verbal
components carry less than 35 per cent of social meaning of the situation; more than 65 per
cent of the social meaning is carried on the nonverbal level.
According to Knapp (1980: 4-21), the theoretical writings and research on nonverbal
communication can be divided into the following seven areas:
 Kinesics or body motion

 Physical characteristics (including physique or body shape, general
attractiveness, clothing)

6
 Touching behaviour or haptics (tactile communication is probably the most basic
or primary – as )
 Paralanguage (including voice qualities and vocalizations)
 Proxemics (the study of the use and perception of social and personal space)
 Artifacts (including the use of objects such as jewellery and cosmetics and other
decorations that may serve as nonverbal stimuli)
 The environment or environmental factors within which the interaction occurs.
Nguyen Quang (2001:19) has a clear and sufficient classification of nonverbal
communication as stated in the following diagram:

COMMUNICATION
Verbal communication
Nonverbal communication

Intralanguage

Paralanguage
- Lexicon
- Rules of grammar
- Rules of phonetics
- Rules of language
use and interaction
skills
- …
- Vocal characteristics:
+ Pitch
+ Volume
+ Rate
+ Vocal quality
- Types of vocal flow
- Vocal interferences
- Silence/Pauses
- …

Body language/Kinesics
- Eye contact
- Facial expressions
- Physical characteristics
- Gestures
- Postures
- Body movements
- Touch/Haptics/Tactile
- …

Extralanguage

Object language/Artifacts


Environmental language

- Clothing
- Jewellery
- Accessories
- Make-up
- Artificial scents
- Gift
- Flowers
- ……

- Setting (seating
arrangement included)

- Conversational
distance/Proxemics
- Time/Chronemics
- Lighting system
- Colour
- Heat
- …


7
I.2. Classroom communication styles and classroom seating arrangements
Seating arrangements are a main part in a teacher‟s plan for classroom
management. Not only do the teachers need to consider the physical arrangement of the
room but also the nature of the students involved. Arranging the physical environment of
the room should be taken into consideration so that teaching and learning can occur as
efficiently as possible. The teacher needs to be able to walk around the room without the
students having to move their desks. The teacher needs to take into account that students
seated in the center or front of the classroom tend to interact more frequently with the
teacher and the number of behavioral problems tend to increase as the students sit farther
from the teacher. Also, students in the back and corners of the room are more likely to be
off task than those close to the front or to the teacher‟s desk. There are many seating
arrangements that the teachers can use. Each type of classroom arrangement has both
advantages and disadvantages. To make the lesson most effective, the teacher should fit
the teaching style with the appropriate arrangement of students.
I.2.1. Teaching styles


Hativa (2000) lists the following skills of teachers:
• Examine, interpret, and share learning;
• Understand how students learn;

• Learn the knowledge in their field;
• Conduct research on learning and teaching;
• Share their experiences.
Additionally, an effective teacher also understands how to promote a love for self-
learning in students. Bess (2000: 53) argues that “student preferences for teaching strategies
are for active and challenging learning, where they are involved, where learning is connected
to real life, and where there are opportunities for mutual responsibility”.
Scott-Webber, Marini, and Abraham (2000) have divided possible teacher-student
relationships into different types of communication styles. They include one-on-one,

8
presentation, teamwork, and discussion. The one-on-one communication style is associated
with self-directed learning, learning through electronic tutorials, or teacher-to-student
learning. The one-on-one style places an emphasis on the student‟s understanding and
discovery (Hativa and Birrenbaum, 2000).
The most common communication style is known as presentation (Scott-Webber et
al. 2000). This includes activities such as lecturing, sharing information, motivating, and
performing demonstrations. Because students are less willing to learn in a lecture format
and prefer a more active learning environment (Wolff, 2001), presenters must emphasize
quality (Hativa and Birrenbaum, 2000). Cornell (2003) suggests that students are less
willing to learn in a lecture format because they are fatigued and drowsy from sitting for
long periods of time. They prefer an active learning environment because it is more
physically and mentally stimulating. The implementation of technology software, such as
PowerPoint, can help to create a stimulating learning environment that may aid the
instructor in retaining the students‟ attention. Nonetheless, the student is still a passive
observer.
Teamwork is increasingly becoming popular and is also referred to as collaborative
learning. The activities involved with teamwork are intergroup work, shared discovery,
brainstorming, and games. Therefore, the instructor becomes a facilitator of knowledge.
This style allows students to be recognized as individuals with different strengths (Hativa

and Birrenbaum, 2000).
The discussion style involves the exchange of information, making decisions, and
meeting. The discussion style has similar teamwork style characteristics such as the
sharing of information and brainstorming. Instructors also allocate certain amounts of
discussion time in lectures or presentations in order to answer any questions that may arise
from the lecture (Hativa and Birrenbaum, 2000).
These different types of communication styles will be identified in this study. Both
students and teachers will be asked which communication style is performed most often.

9
This will determine which communication style is most popular and whether or not the
students and teachers‟ perceptions are the same.
I.2.2. Seating arrangements and teacher-student interactions

Arranging the physical environment of the classroom is one way to improve the
learning environment and to prevent problem behaviors before they occur. Research on the
classroom environment has shown that the physical arrangement can affect the behavior of
both students and teachers (Savage, 1999; Stewart & Evans, 1997; Weinstein, 1992), and
that a well-structured classroom tends to improve student academic and behavioral
outcomes (MacAulay, 1990; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker & Walker, 1991).
In addition, the classroom environment acts as a symbol to students and others regarding
what teachers value in behavior and learning (Savage, 1999; Weinstein, 1992). If a
classroom is not properly organized to support the type of schedule and activities a teacher
has planned, it can impede the functioning of the day as well as limit what and how
students learn. However, a well-arranged classroom environment is one way to more
effectively manage instruction because it triggers fewer behavior problems and establishes
a climate conducive to learning.
The spatial structure of the classroom refers to how students are seated, where the
students and teacher are in relation to one another, how classroom members move around
the room, and the overall sense of atmosphere and order. The research on classroom

environments suggests that classrooms should be organized to accommodate a variety of
activities throughout the day and to meet the teacher‟s instructional goals (Savage, 1999;
Weinstein, 1992). In addition, the classroom should be set up to set the stage for the
teacher to address the academic, social, and emotional needs of students (MacAulay,
1990). The standards for determining what spatial lay-out is most appropriate to fulfill
these functions include: ways to maximize the teacher‟s ability to see and be seen by all
his or her students; facilitate ease of movement throughout the classroom; minimize
distractions so that students are best able to actively engage; provide each student and the

10
teacher with his or her own personal space; and ensuring that each student can see
presentations and materials posted in the classroom.
Most researchers agree that well-arranged classroom settings reflect the following
attributes:
• Clearly defined spaces within the classroom are used for different purposes and
ensure that students know how to behave in each of these areas (Quinn, Osher, Warger,
Hanley, Bader, & Hoffman, 2000; Stewart & Evans, 1997; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey,
1995; Walker & Walker, 1991). For instance, classrooms will contain a high-traffic area
around commonly shared resources and spaces for teacher-led instruction or independent
work, such as rows of desks. A classroom for students with learning/behavior problems
may have separate quiet spaces where a student can cool down or work independently
(Quinn et al., 2000; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995), personal spaces that each student
can call his or her own (Rinehart, 1991; Quinn et al., 2000), and areas for large and small
group activities that set the stage for specific kinds interactions between students and
teacher (Rinehart, 1991; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). There may also be spaces to
store items, computers, or audio-visual equipment.
• Seating students in rows facilitates on task behavior and academic learning;
whereas more open arrangements, such as clusters, facilitate social exchanges among
students (MacAulay, 1990; Walker & Walker, 1991).
• It is useful to strategically arrange the classroom to limit student contact in high-

traffic areas, such as the space surrounding the pencil sharpener and wastebasket, and
instructional areas; and, to seat easily distracted students farther away from high- traffic
areas (Bettenhausen, 1998; Quinn et al., 2000; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker
& Walker, 1991).
• All students should have a clear view of the teacher and vice versa, at all times
(Quinn et al., 2000; Rinehart, 1991; Stewart & Evans, 1997; Walker et al., 1995; Walker &
Walker, 1991; Wolfgang, 1996). In addition, the traffic pattern in the classroom allows the

11
teacher to be in close physical proximity to high maintenance students (Shores, Gunter &
Jack, 1993; Wolfgang, 1996).
• There is some evidence that it is useful to limit visual and auditory stimulation
that may distract students with attention and behavior problems (Bettenhausen, 1998;
Cummings, Quinn et al., 2000).
• There is good reason to strategically place students with special needs or behavior
problems in close proximity to the teacher‟s desk (Bettenhausen, 1998; Wolfgang, 1996).
Shores and his colleagues (1993) recommend that this be done not only to monitor student
problem behaviors, but also to facilitate teacher delivery of positive statements when
compliant or otherwise appropriate behaviors are exhibited.
• Finally, it is advantageous to keep the classroom orderly and well organized
(Bettenhausen, 1998; Stewart & Evans, 1997).
I.2.3. 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.

12
The traditional arrangement for classrooms typically consists of about five or six
perfectly straight rows, each containing five to seven chairs equidistant from each other
The students‟ desks are not touching each other but are lines up in rows and columns and
facing the teacher. The teacher is usually only able to walk from the front to the back in
this set up, not walk from side to side without making students move. The straight-row
arrangement evolved to make the best use of the only adequate lighting then available –
natural light from side windows. In spite of developments in lighting which make the
straight-row arrangement unnecessary, this traditional arrangement persists, in fact
dominates. According to the author‟s observation, almost all universities in Vietnam have
this classroom arrangement.
The horseshoe (or U-shape, semi-circular) arrangement is frequently employed in
smaller classes, such as seminars. Some rooms are not physically conductive to this
arrangement for larger classes because of the “dead space” in the middle. Consequently, a
“double horseshoe” (or circular or “fishbowl”), two semi-circular rows with one inside the
other, is also frequently observed.
The modular arrangement (clusters) is used when 3-5 students work around one
table. There are four or five desks pushed together so every desk is facing another one.
The fifth desk, if needed, would be put on the end of the group of four. The classroom
would have clusters scattered around, so the teacher is free to walk around the room
without bumping into students‟ desks or chairs.
According to Atherton (2005), there are four basic non-specialized classroom
layouts: the traditional lecture-style classroom arrangement (desk rows), U-shaped seating
(horseshoe, semi-circle), modular (clusters), circular (“fishbowl”). Each of these

encourages or inhibits certain kinds of interaction and thus the types of learning that can
occur. (See Figures 1-4.)


13
Figure 1: Desk rows






Figure 2: U-shape

14

Figure 3: Modular




Figure 4: Circular



15
I.2.3.1. The traditional lecture-style seating arrangements
In the traditional lecture-style, the teacher stands in the front of the room and all the
students‟ desks face the teacher. Since all the students are facing forward and the teacher is
in the front of the classroom, he or she is the primary source of knowledge. This is a

perfect situation for testing because each student has their own space. Desk rows
minimizes the amount of non-productive talking amongst the students as well as assisting
the students in focusing on the major concepts of the particular lesson since the desks are
spread apart as much as possible. Whole group instruction, lectures, and independent
seatwork are ideal when the desks are in rows. The use of a variety of media, for example,
maps, computer projection, board-work, overhead projection are also most conducive to
the desk row arrangement. Desk rows exhibit good teacher-controlled classroom
management. Community-based classroom management is difficult to promote because the
desks are in rows. Because the desks are in rows and the students are separated, the
opportunity for inappropriate behavior is minimized. On the other hand, maybe the
inappropriate behavior is more easily observed in a classroom with the desks in rows. The
main teaching goals of a teacher whose classroom is set up in rows is lecture and whole
group instruction. With the desks being in rows, it is easy for the teacher to give lectures,
whole group instruction, and tests because there is less opportunity for the students to be
out of line. The objective of these activities is to have the students focus and concentrate
on the key information of the lesson, with a minimal amount of distraction.
In the testing environment, the teacher is attempting to assess the progress of the
class and each individual student as accurately as possible. By spacing the students in
rows, each student has the opportunity to demonstrate his/her mastery of the curricular
material. On the other hand, desk rows is not ideal for group work or group discussions.
Group work and group discussions are an important part of the curriculum. It is difficult to
do this when the desks are in rows. Since the desks are in rows, some students will be
closer to the blackboard and the teacher than others. This is a major disadvantage for the
students who are seated in the back rows. This type of classroom is controlled and

16
organized by only the teacher. Desk rows promote a one-sided classroom environment.
Again, with this type of seating arrangement, group work and group discussions are
difficult to do. Before assigning seats to students the teacher needs to do a sociogram. The
teachers need to quickly map social interactions between and amongst students so they

know where to place the students. Also, they need to decide which students can handle
being in the back of the classroom. The students are in a perfect test taking arrangement if
the teacher is monitoring the class. The students are all facing the teacher and can see the
blackboard, overhead projector, screen and other instructional aids. It is easy for the
teacher to monitor all the students. The problem with this arrangement is some students are
going to have to sit in the corners and in the back of the room. In these locations in the
classroom students participate and interact less and more behavioral problems occur. This
arrangement is also not good for group work or projects. Taking the time to have the
students get into groups and move their desks is taking away important instructional time.
I.2.3.2. U-shape seating arrangement
The objective of group work is communication and peer interaction. The
development of these communication skills is integral in the growth of the whole student.
The ability to effectively work with others in a group is a life skill. It is much more
conducive to communicate in U-shape or semi-circle rather than in a traditional row
seating arrangement. It is important to look into the face of your peer while you
communicate with them, as opposed to looking at the back of your peer‟s head. The
transition from desk rows to an arrangement that allow for more peer learning would be
exciting for students. It would be a chance for them to discuss problems with their peers
and get involved in group learning. This type of seating arrangement allows the teacher to
be able to see all the students in the classroom. Group discussions happen with the desks
set up this way. Teacher-led discussions are easily started when the desks are arranged in a
circle or semicircle. All the students are able to see the blackboard and the teacher, as well
as each other. Teacher proximity is good because the teacher has easy access to all the
students and vice versa. The circle or semicircle set up is good for high maintenance

17
students because there is not much that the students can do that the teacher will not see.
The circle or semicircle seating arrangement makes it easy for all the students to be
actively engaged in the group discussions, teacher led discussions, and even lectures.
There is no front or back of the room. There is no priority seating so there is more equality

and no real rank order among the peer hierarchy. This arrangement, on the other hand, is
not ideal for testing since the students are directly next to one another. With the students
sitting next to each other, it makes it easy to share work, when that is not the objective on
an individual test of knowledge.
The goal of most test taking is to test a student independently, not in a group. The
teacher could, however, create two or three tests evaluating the same material and still
utilize this same classroom setup. Group work is a rather difficult activity to manage
because the students are spread out around the entire room. This is the case for teacher-
controlled classroom management because the teacher is the main source of information.
On the contrary, the circle arrangement would be ideal for community-based
classroom management because the ownership for maintaining the learning environment is
shared between the teacher and the students. Depending on the focus of the assignment,
the circle arrangement may or may not allow the students to work easily with each other.
For example, if the assignment was for the students to work with a partner, this
arrangement would be perfect because they had someone directly next to them. If the
assignment was a group project, where the students were supposed to discuss a „hot topic‟,
then a circle is not the best set up because the students would have to rearrange their desks
in order to talk with each other.
The teaching goals for the U-shape or semicircle arrangement are group discussions
and teacher-led discussions. With this classroom, there is constant opportunity for the
students to bring and contribute ideas to the discussion. The teacher does not give too
much guidance. However, the circle also works well with constructivist direct instruction.
The teacher had clear vision of everyone as he gave his presentation. This informal setting

18
contributes to the mood of the classroom. Oftentimes, when a student is providing
information for a group, he/she is nervous. The circle-semicircle classroom arrangement
can positively contribute to the presenter‟s state of mind. Moreover, the classroom
discussions are flexible. The teacher‟s role in this type of classroom is to provide an
enriched, stimulating environment. As the discussion of the classroom progresses, it is the

teacher‟s job to facilitate the learning. The teacher needs to be there to make sure the
discussion is appropriate and the point is being clearly made. The teacher could initiate
probing questions to the class to further develop the discussion. He or she is also there to
answer any questions that the students may have.
As U-shape or semi-circle seating arrangement is when all the desks touch each
other facing the front of the room in a semi-circle shape, The teacher can easily see each
student and they can see him/ her and the instructional aids. The philosophies of the
teacher using this arrangement can be direct instruction, child run or collaborative. Each
philosophy could be implemented into this classroom setting. Because all the students can
see each other they can have debates and discussions amongst themselves. The students
can give ideas on how they want to do an activity and the seating arrangement could
probably accommodate the activity. Also, because the students all have clear vision to the
board, direct instruction from the teacher could be very common. The teacher would have
full control over the students. The teacher could easily walk around the room and monitor
everybody‟s work. The students would also be able to work together doing projects and
activities.
The semi-circle seating arrangement would be bad because the teacher would have
a hard time meeting with the students one-on-one. This is because the seats are very close
to each other. Also, the semi-circle would take up almost the entire classroom so there
isn‟t much room for activities or conferencing outside the desk area. Semi-circle desk
arrangement can be used in all grade classrooms and for all educational philosophies. This
is because the teacher can have classroom discussions and all the students can see and hear
each other well. The teacher can take a passive role and listen to the students and let them

19
run the class. Also, in this arrangement the teacher can run the class giving the students
step by step instructions. All the students are facing the front of the room and have their
own space to work. The students can work easily together without much movement
because they are sitting directly next to each other which make hands on activities and
collaborative learning possible.

I.2.3.3. Modular seating arrangement
This type of seating arrangement is very conducive for group learning and group
work. The students have the opportunity to confer with each other when completing
assignments. Working with others and getting along with different types of people is a life
skill that needs to be developed. Teamwork is essential to prepare students for workplace
readiness. Classroom group work can help this. The students can build on each other‟s
ideas and knowledge about a topic. Clusters become difficult when administering tests
because the main point of testing students is to obtain an independent score for each one.
There is a time for group work and thought, but not during test time. Tests are
administered to indicate the amount of knowledge a single student has retained. It is also
difficult when lecturing or with whole group instruction because of the talking that may
occur because the desks are so close together. Talking during lecture time takes away from
the focus of the classroom. It is disruptive and inappropriate to talk while others are
talking. If the teacher decides to open the lecture to a group discussion, then it is fine for
the students to talk.
Depending on the arrangement of the clusters, some students may have difficulty
seeing the board or the teacher. The teaching goals in a classroom with the desks arranged
in clusters are peer learning and group work. This type of classroom is collaborative
because both the teacher and the students bring topics to the classroom to discuss. It is also
exciting when a student brings information or a topic that he/she is passionate about and
shares that knowledge. The teacher‟s role is to share his or her knowledge with the
students and to guide the students in the right direction. Teacher-based classroom

20
management could be difficult since it is so easy for the students to talk with each other,
but if the teacher is consistent with the rules of the classroom from the beginning, that
could be eliminated.
Community-based classroom management is very appropriate for a classroom with
the desks in clusters because it promotes group learning. The transition from clusters to a
more traditional seating arrangement could be hard for students. After being in a

classroom where the main objectives are group learning and group work, it will be difficult
for children to then enter a classroom where lectures and independent seatwork are the
focus. This transition is inevitable. At some point in a students career, they are going to
encounter a teacher that only believes in independent, individual seatwork. It is important
that students learn how to adjust to different types of seating arrangements. It is essential
for our students to be adaptable and flexible in the learning environment.
The groups of students need to be thought about before setting up. The students
need to be able to work together. There will have to be different levels of students at each
group so that they can help each other learn and grow. Clusters are very common in
situations where there is a lot of group learning and work. The desks together make it easy
for all students in the cluster to see each other and to discuss. In this situation the
philosophy of the teacher is more collaborative learning. This lets the students have hands
on activities and learn by practicing. The teacher shares and gives guidance and help to the
students. This arrangement also, allows for students to do individual work at their desk.
Clusters are not very good during test or quizzes because students can easily cheat
off each other. Clusters can be a disadvantage to the teacher when giving a direct
instruction lesson because students may not be oriented toward them. Students may have
their back to the teacher and not be focused to the front of the room. Teachers do not use
this kind of instruction not because they do not value it but because the students would use
most of their time not working but talking about life and all the social activities. The

21
students would be wasting their instructional time and the teacher would be using their
time making the students be quiet.
I.2.3.4. Circular or “fishbowl” seating arrangement
This arrangement allows for the easiest student-student and teacher-student
interaction. Sitting in this arrangement, students tend to participate in conversations and
seminars more readily. If the group is too large to get around a U-shaped layout or a
board-room table, the "fishbowl", with concentric circles of students, maximizes the
possibilities of discussion. Clearly this works better without tables, and it is useful to make

efforts to ensure that over several sessions, everyone has their turn in the "inner circle".
There are going to be expected issues that the students are going to have when
changing from one seating arrangement to another. Most of the students will like the
change and will get used to it very quickly, even though it might come to a surprise right
away. Some students will have gotten accustomed to their seat and the people around them
and not be as willing to sit in their new seat. To get pass all the students feelings on the
new seating arrangement it is easiest to prepare the students and let them know the day
before that you will be changing the room around. From the beginning of the year it is
easiest to let the students know that the classroom changes ever so often. To help the
students understand that you care if they are upset, tell them that you will listen and maybe
think about changing his or her seat. It is easiest to watch the way the students react to
their new seats and see if they get used to it. Not every student is going to like their seat
right away, especially in the older grades where the fact that who sit next to who becomes
more important.
I.2.4. Evaluation of classroom seating arrangements

As we noted above, the traditional straight-row arrangement is predominate in most
educational settings, particularly in college settings. The cause of this dominance is
elusive, but tradition is the explanation offered most frequently. Discussions with teachers

22
who employ the straight-row arrangement reveal that many of them simply had never
thought about it. Others commented that the school janitor would become incensed if they
rearranged the seats. Some reported trying other arrangements but being chastised by
colleagues or superiors for having or leaving a "messy room". Many simply indicated that
they liked their room that way with no explanation for why they had that preference. If
seating is discussed at all in a teaching methods course, the traditional arrangement is
virtually always attacked as less desirable than other alternatives.
Taking a functional approach, for example, each of the three arrangements has
positive elements depending on the desired type of communication in the classroom. If the

purpose of the class is primarily one of information dissemination, the traditional
arrangement is probably best because it minimizes student-student interaction and places
the primary interaction focus in the classroom on the teacher. With regard to the horseshoe
arrangement, it would be the best if both student-student and student-teacher interactions
are important to the learning in the class. Classes such as those concerned with higher-
order cognitive affective goals, particularly where there are few "right" or "wrong"
answers, would be benefited most by this arrangement.
The modular arrangement is advocated for classes in which student-student
interaction is most important. If task groups are formed in the class, this arrangement
permits maximum interaction among those groups while minimizing the interference of
one group with another. This arrangement is also recommended for classes which require
that the teacher work closely with individuals or groups rather than primarily with the
class as a whole.
While the teacher is the primary focus in the traditional arrangement and teacher
and students share the focus in the horseshoe arrangement, the teacher is removed from the
focal point in modular arrangement. However, the traditional system is least conducive to
interaction and that if the teacher seeks to increase communication in the classroom, one of
the other arrangements should be chosen.