Upon the completion of testing both the U-Shape and Pairs seating arrangements, both Algebra I and Algebra II classes returned back to the original Groups of 4 arrangement of the classroom. By returning back to the original seating arrangement, I hoped to note any changes in participation and collaboration between students in the small groups as well as across the classroom. Brigette Burgess and Naz Kaya presented research focusing on the idea of territoriality and the impact that spacial arrangements have on student orientation in the classroom. In my initial observations of the students seated in groups of four, students were allowed to select their own seats in this arrangement. I observed a wide array of participation and collaboration counts amongst the class. This notion of territoriality seemed to be present – students who were comfortable with their peers seated around them showed a higher participation count. After weeks of altering the seating arrangement, I wondered if students would assume the same feelings of comfort or discomfort when returning back to a seating arrangement with groups.
Similar to the initial arrangement of groups of four, students were able to select their own seat within the classroom without any restrictions to classmates seated at their table. At a glance, I noted that the seats in this arrangement were decided socially – many of the “friends” in the classroom chose to sit together. My goal for this artifact was to see if any observable differences occurred in the participation and/or collaboration amongst students after they were made more aware of their engagement in each tested seating plan. Up until this point, I noticed that several students who initially did not volunteer in whole group discussion felt more comfortable asking questions or contributing their ideas in front of the large group. I hoped that this trend would continue so that I would see a very evenly distributed number of contributions across the classroom.
Similar to the initial arrangement of groups of four, students were able to select their own seat within the classroom without any restrictions to classmates seated at their table. At a glance, I noted that the seats in this arrangement were decided socially – many of the “friends” in the classroom chose to sit together. My goal for this artifact was to see if any observable differences occurred in the participation and/or collaboration amongst students after they were made more aware of their engagement in each tested seating plan. Up until this point, I noticed that several students who initially did not volunteer in whole group discussion felt more comfortable asking questions or contributing their ideas in front of the large group. I hoped that this trend would continue so that I would see a very evenly distributed number of contributions across the classroom.
My Penn Mentor constructed a seating chart of the current classroom, and she noted the acts of engagement (and disengagement) by the students in their various positions. Overall, she and I observed that back in these groups, the “spokesperson” contributor seemed to resurface; at each table, only one or two students consistently volunteered to share their ideas or asked clarifying questions. The resurgence of this pattern truly surprised me due to Weinstein’s discussion of clusters serving as a mechanism of social interaction amongst students. My Penn Mentor noted the interactions that occurred between students in each group, and only one set of interactions was noted at each table.
Looking back on this arrangement, it may have been in the better interest of the students to provide them with some guidance in selecting their seats in this arrangement. I had received feedback describing the aspects of seating design from each student, so it may have helped the collaborative and participatory aspects if I had made a larger attempt to allow those students who valued positioning in the arrangement to select their seat first. That way they could ensure that they could access the information presented to them through the lesson slides in addition to those classmates who would be seated around them. I wonder how the seating would have worked out if I had allowed those students to select their seat first, followed by the students who value their seat partner(s). Would the arrangement have looked similar? Would those students who initially placed most value in who they sat with change their mind based on the seating locations they had to select from?
Looking back on this arrangement, it may have been in the better interest of the students to provide them with some guidance in selecting their seats in this arrangement. I had received feedback describing the aspects of seating design from each student, so it may have helped the collaborative and participatory aspects if I had made a larger attempt to allow those students who valued positioning in the arrangement to select their seat first. That way they could ensure that they could access the information presented to them through the lesson slides in addition to those classmates who would be seated around them. I wonder how the seating would have worked out if I had allowed those students to select their seat first, followed by the students who value their seat partner(s). Would the arrangement have looked similar? Would those students who initially placed most value in who they sat with change their mind based on the seating locations they had to select from?