During
the room arrangement walk-throughs at our middle school, many of the classrooms
displayed a variation of the Gliffy examples of classroom seating. There were also several that reflected the
diagrams of Evertson and Poole (2007) in the seating arrangement case study
unit. Interestingly, I noticed quite a mix of room
arrangements; the most common arrangement was that of groups in clusters. I
visited several classrooms in all content areas, but focused more on the
language arts rooms. The language arts classes account for the majority group cluster seating arrangements. Small group reading instruction was
similarly mandated at the middle school level about seven years ago in our
school system. Most teachers began to
place students in groups of four to six based on their reading lexile score.
Those groups become a part of a cluster to make up three reading groups. Flexible
groups are developed based on students’ skill mastery of learning
outcomes. I suppose this accounts for
seating to match the lesson purpose described by Drs. Evertson and Poole.
Evidence of small group instruction is one of our focus walk “look fors.” Small
group room arrangement was also the choice arrangement in math and science classes, regardless of the lesson being taught.
In
my classroom, a temporary unit located just outside the main building, I have
short rows that are perpendicular to the front and back of the room. My desk is located in the back with barstools
on front side of my desk to provide students a mini reading/writing lab and a conferencing
area. It was interesting to see my classroom
design named in the diagram as a writing lab. Our team goal statement for this
school year is, “Growing Analytic Readers and Writers for 21st
Century Colleges and Careers.” The goal statement is influenced by the onset of
the common core curriculum standards and the thrust for more writing across the
curriculum.
Evertson
and Poole (2007) state that rows or pairs are best for seatwork, test and
independent work. Most teachers, in designing their classroom, rarely use the
standard single row mission style seating. However, there were a few classrooms
with rows and pairs. One such classroom had established routines for transforming the seating arrangement quickly into groups. The teacher appeared to move
throughout the class with ease providing differential instruction,whole
group directed. The teacher in this room had multiple (generally stated)
objectives posted all over the classroom. Our focus -walk observation tool
“look for” calls for a clearly defined objective aligned with a formative
assessment. She was given a score of 1, for partial
implementation. A score of 2 is given for full implementation. Clearly defined
objectives with measurable learning outcomes benefit students, helping them to
self-monitor as the teacher guides instruction. The teacher did not get the full
score in that area (objective). However, established rituals and routines with the room
arrangement were conducive to student learning. The students appeared to learn
the lesson concepts on poetry and language style.
As
I reflect, I know that objective writing for this teacher has been in
question. Posting multiple generally
stated objectives has been the same issue for the last three
years. She is a veteran teacher of 46
years. The observation team (math chair, reading specialist and myself) scored the
teacher accordingly (for objective) based
on our observation tool. This teacher does not intend to change the objective
format. Does it mean her teaching style
is faulty or does not meet the standard?
Pajak’s
work in his book, Honoring Diverse
Teaching Styles, is a wonderful
resource that helps me to identify psychological functions as an observer’s self-reflection
tool. I know that room arrangement matters and can enhance instructional
delivery. I must say that I never really
incorporated it as a major factor during observations, but would point out room
arrangement if I thought it interfered with the lesson effectiveness. After looking into room
arrangement as a factor for observations, I realize it will benefit me to
develop auxiliary functions and not rely solely on my dominant functions during observations. Pajak (2003) describes how the four psychological
functions (thinking, sensing, feeling, intuiting) interact and their influence on
classroom observation. After all, the ultimate goal is student achievement and building
teacher capacity. I will continue to explore qualitative observations to provide a broad and complex recording of classroom life (Glickman, 2010). Exploratory work in this area will prove effective while honoring various teaching styles as I work to develop my capacities in
supervision.
