The traditional lecture setup consists of rows of fixed seating. Students face the instructor with their backs to one another. This classroom seating arrangement is historically common in colleges and universities, minimizing student-student communication and largely supporting lecture style classes. Students in the first row or along the middle of the classroom are most likely to communicate and interact with the professor. Students in back rows are less likely to be engaged.
If you are looking for more details, kindly visit our website.
The horseshoe or semi-circle arrangement offers a modified roundtable setup, where all participants face each other while the instructor can move around the room. The horseshoe encourages discussion between students and with the instructor, although this setup tends to encourage more engagement between the instructor and students directly opposite, with slightly lesser amounts for students immediately adjacent to the instructor. A horseshoe setup can be particularly effective when the instructor wishes to project and discuss course-related material in the front of the class.
This seating arrangement involves an inner and outer horseshoe. Similar to the conventional horseshoe, the double horseshoe arrangement invites greater discussion than the traditional format. It is somewhat limited by the backs of students within the inner circle facing students in the outer circle. However, students may also more easily interact with those nearest to them or turn around and face students behind them for group work. This seating arrangement can typically also accommodate larger class sizes than the conventional horseshoe or roundtable.
The group or pair pod arrangement can be designed with rectangular, circular or trapezoidal tables, or individual desks. Instructors can place several tables together to form pairs or student groups of three or four. This arrangement can be especially advantageous when students work collaboratively for a large portion of class time. More generally, this arrangement communicates a learning community where students are expected to work with one another.
When dynamic change to seating arrangements proves difficult, instructors can bolster the physical space through intentional engagement. For example, in a typical horseshoe arrangement where students along the sides may experience less attention, an instructor may be more deliberate in their interactions with those learners. In a traditional classroom setup where the instructor cannot change the seating arrangements, they can maximize student engagement by implementing Think-Pair-Share or other active learning activities conducive to students working with a neighbor. They can also encourage student groups to work in other spaces of the classroom as needed (e.g. on the steps, front of the room, etc.).
To the extent possible, an instructor can designate time for setting up the classroom and/or can ask students to help. If there is no class immediately before, this can be done prior to class, or alternatively during the first few minutes. Similar consideration should be given to resetting the room after class ends.
Fernandez, A.C., Huang, J., & Rinaldo, V. (). Does Where a Student Sits Really Matter? The Impact on Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies 10(1).
Gao, N., Rahaman, M. S., Shao, W., Ji, K., & Salim, F. D. (). Individual and group-wise classroom seating experience: Effects on student engagement in different courses. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6(3), 1-23.
Marx, A., Fuhrer, U. & Hartig, T. Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangements on Children’s question-asking. Learning Environments Research 2, 249–263 (). https://doi.org/10./A:
Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: A review of empirical research. Support for Learning 23(2), 89-93.
Yang, X., Zhou, X., & Hu, J. (). Students’ preferences for seating arrangements and their engagement in cooperative learning activities in college English blended learning classrooms in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 41(4), -.
An exercise called Philosophical Chairs is a versatile way to get students speaking and listening to one another. It’s a student-centered strategy that can be used in any content area around a multitude of topics. It’s set up like a debate—and one explicit objective is for students to be open to changing their minds.
The other objectives—which can be tied to standards—are for students to practice respectful dialogue, provide evidence for claims using prior knowledge, organize their thinking and logical reasoning, and avoid disputable statements. The exercise also provides a venue to challenge students’ assumptions.
The basic outline of Philosophical Chairs is this:
Before starting any speaking and listening activity, it’s important to have discussion norms. In my class, the norms generally include:
Goto WINNER to know more.
I provide students with a sheet of sentence stems for politely disagreeing, adding on to someone else’s comments, and redirecting the conversation back to the topic. We use these for the first few discussions, but after that students generally don’t need them.
A more detailed explanation of Philosophical Chairs goes something like this. A statement about a topic is presented to the class by the facilitator—it can be either teacher- or student-generated.
It’s a statement that doesn’t have a right or wrong answer, but is relevant to the content. For example, in a health class, Philosophical Chairs could begin with this: “Tobacco products should be allowed for ages 12 and up if monitored by an adult.” In math class: “Using a car-sharing service makes more financial sense than owning a car.”
I like to give students at least five statements to ensure that we have some with sufficient disagreement to generate a good discussion, and they spend a few minutes writing their responses to each one—yes, no, or undecided—and providing a rationale. I quickly poll the class before we begin to ensure there’s a fair division of opinion—if there is not enough for a robust discussion, I’ll drop a statement, or participate with the side that has less advocates, but otherwise I’m an observer.
After students write their initial responses and thoughts, they move to sit or stand in a yes row and a no row facing each other. Undecided students stand at the end of the two rows, facing them.
A student facilitator moderates the discussion. They read the statement, call on students to speak, and gently remind students to stay focused on the topic. I coach facilitators ahead of time, teaching them how to ask clarifying questions, and asking them to call on those who seem like they have something to say but are not raising their hand.
The two sides alternate speaking at first. But as the year goes on, and the class gets better at listening and respecting each other, it’s normal for students to relax about the order—everyone still contributes.
I give the facilitator a roster so they can mark off who they’ve called on, in an effort to broaden the number of students who talk at least once. Students are not required to speak. I ask for everyone to show that they’re listening respectfully, but it’s important to let kids not talk. Eventually they will—I’ve never had a student who never speaks, because their classmates eventually prompt them, and they do share their thoughts.
As the discussion begins, the first person to speak gives a clear rationale for their belief. The next student must then summarize what that person said before they share their own thoughts.
Students are allowed to switch sides at any time. They don’t give an explanation—they just move. They frequently speak up soon after moving to share what point changed their mind, and then add their thoughts.
Students who are undecided never have to pick a side, but they do have to share what they see as the strongest points from either side and say why they thought those points were the most compelling, even it they were not ultimately convinced. The facilitator shares their opinion at the end of the discussion.
Occasionally, when I sense that both sides are not being open-minded about a statement, I’ll have them do something I call a Lincoln Debate—everyone has to switch sides and argue for the opposing position. This challenges students’ thinking and pushes them to see other perspectives.
I think it’s important to praise students for open-mindedness, and not for their excellent points. They get a lot of positive feedback on zingers, but how often do we acknowledge open-mindedness as a skill we want to cultivate?
It’s illuminating for me to listen to the insightful commentary my students share. But the best part is reading their reflections, and seeing the growth on the page: “I changed my mind because...,” or “I didn’t change my mind because..., but I learned that....” I can see their growth in their own words.
Are you interested in learning more about Double Student Chair? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!