I observed classroom seating arrangements in two elementary buildings and was pleasantly surprised to see how many classrooms had desks arranged in groups. Many of these groups had names that the students agreed upon together. I believe that groups enable collaborative learning opportunities; however, I was not able to observe long enough in the classrooms to see collaborative learning taking place. Now that I know that seating arrangements should match the lesson purpose, I will look for evidence of collaborative work in classrooms with groups of desks (The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, n.d.).
I noticed that classrooms with desks in rows appeared to be less spacious than rooms with desks in groups. Although I know it was a visual trick, it seemed as if the teacher would have a difficult time circulating among all of her students in the room with long rows. Classrooms with groups of desks seem to be more open and inviting with wider walkways. These wider walkways are suitable for students with special needs. I wonder how many teachers have student desks assembled in groups as a result of space instead of instructional purpose.
Based on the two schools I observed, first grade had the most diversity in their room arrangements. I noticed rows, groups, and two horseshoe shapes. Some of these classrooms did not have teacher desks. I feel that this is a result of the age level. It is difficult to hold the attention of a six/seven year old, so the classroom needs to allow for constant movement (centers, read aloud, etc). When I taught transitional first grade, I got rid of my teacher desk because I never sat at it and I needed the room for my students. Second, third, and fourth grades seemed to consist of mostly groups except for rows in one class within each grade level. Majority of the special education classrooms had rows with space between each desk. I see how this arrangement would minimize distractions and allow for support personnel to assist a student. In addition to their personal desks, the special education classrooms had various areas of the room dedicated to direct instruction, groupwork, SMARTBoard interactivity and computer activities. These areas allow for the teacher to group students by the level of support they need to succeed in the subject area.
The prime difference I noticed in the various classrooms was the arrangement of the SMARTBoard and projector. Since our boards and projectors are not mounted, each teacher has the equipment arranged in a different manner. Some SMARTBoards are on an angle so that all members of the class can see the board from their desks. Others are setup so that the group needs to be sitting directly in front of the board to see. I believe that the desk arrangements in rooms with SMARTBoards are setup in a specific manner as a result of the amount of space taken up by the equipment. When I provide professional development opportunities, I need to differentiate my methods because not all classrooms have SMARTBoards, and those that do might not have it in a place that is conducive for a large group of children. Since the boards are not mounted, ‘orienting’ is a constant issue. This results in teachers using the board as more of a projection screen than an interactive tool.
I have doubts whether room arrangements have a direct influence on supervision and/or staff development. I view the room arrangement category as one that fits under the umbrella of general classroom management. Just as one wouldn’t evaluate a piece of technology sitting unused in a room, I don’t think it’s appropriate to judge a room just by its arrangement. I do believe that there is a direct correlation between room arrangement and room management.
Resource:
The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (n.d.). Effective Room Arrangement. Retrieved on October 2, 2011, from http://olms.cte.jhu.edu/olms2/data/ck/sites/192/files/CaseStudy_EffectiveRoomArrangement.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment