Sử dụng các cách sắp xếp chỗ ngồi nhằm thúc đẩy những ứng xử của sinh viên khi đang thực hiện nhiệm vụ trong các hoạt động hợp tác

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIESFACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES PHAN THÙY LINH USING DIFFERENT CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS TO INC

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THÙY LINH

USING DIFFERENT CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS TO INCREASE STUDENTS’ ON-TASK BEHAVIORS IN COOPERATIVE

LEARNING ACTIVITIES

(Thay đổi mô hình sắp xếp chỗ ngồi của sinh viên để thúc đẩy sự tham gia vàonhững hoạt động trong các giờ học theo phương pháp dạy học hợp tác.)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 8140231.01

HÀ NỘI, 2019 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THÙY LINH

USING DIFFERENT CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS TO INCREASE STUDENTS’ ON-TASK BEHAVIORS IN COOPERATIVE

LEARNING ACTIVITIES

(Thay đổi mô hình sắp xếp chỗ ngồi của sinh viên để thúc đẩy sự tham gia vàonhững hoạt động trong các giờ học theo phương pháp dạy học hợp tác.)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 8140231.01

Supervisor : Prof Hoàng Văn Vân

HÀ NỘI, 2019

I certify that I myself write this thesis entitled “Using Different Classroom Seating Arrangements to Increase Students’ On-Task Behaviors In Cooperative Learning Activities” It is not a plagiarism or made by others Anything related to others’ works

is written in quotation, the sources of which are listed on the list of references If thenthe pronouncement proves wrong, I am ready to accept any academic punishment,including the withdrawal or cancellation of my academic degree

Signature

First and foremost, I have to thank my research supervisor, Prof Dr Hoang VanVan Without his assistance and dedicated involvement in every step throughout theprocess, this study would have never been accomplished I would like to thank himvery much for his support and understanding

I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work duringthis and other related projects Thanks to their passionate participation and input, thevalidation survey could not have been successfully conducted

Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this project than themembers of my family I would like to thank my parents, whose love and guidance arewith me in whatever I pursue

Once again, to my wonderful parents and my friends, thank you for supportingand believing in me Love you!

Research has shown that student participation is affected by a number of factors thatinclude students’ gender, personality differences as well as class environment Thisclass environment includes classroom seating arrangements which are believed to play

an important role in fostering students’ on-task behavior However, how a seatingarrangement can encourage on-task or off-task behavior is found to depend on how farthis seating arrangement agrees with the activity being done and the interaction patternaimed at in class

The purpose of this study was to determine: (1) if classroom seating arrangementsaffect student on-task/off-task participation in CL activities, (2) in what ways seatingarrangements affected student participation (3) students’ preferences of differentclassroom seating arrangements, namely rows and columns and circles

The study was mainly exploratory and qualitative using a convenience sample of twoEFL classes, of a total of 43 students Data were collected through students’ responses

to a questionnaire and a reflective paper In addition, video recordings of class sessionswere also used to collect data about student on-task/off-task participation in bothseating arrangements

Analysis of data shows seating arrangement is a priority to foster student on-taskparticipation in class since the videos show that students in one class were keen tocreate their semi-circle shaped when seated in the rows and columns in order to work

on group activities while students in the other were subversive to the rows and columnsseating arrangement where two of the group members left their places and sat facingthe group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 3 U-shape/horseshoe and circle seating 9Figure 4 Students' responses to Question 1 about talkativeness (Class 1) 22Figure 5 Students' responses to Question 1 about talkativeness (Class 2) 22Figure 6 Students' responses to Question 2 about seating arrangement

preferences in questionnaire and 10-minute paper 23Figure 7 Number of turns and comments for each student 27Figure 8 Number of comments made by students in Class 1 in each

Figure 10 Number of turns, comments for each student (Class 2: circles) 33Figure 11 Number of comments made by students in Class 2 in each

category

33

Figure 12 Students' seating arrangement preferences in questionnaire and

Table 1 Reasons for choosing both seating arrangement (both classes) 24Table 2 Number of comments in each video 28Table 3 Reasons for students' preferences for seating arrangements in

the 10-minute paper

40

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

According to Cornell (2003:1), for a long time, the term “classroom” wascharacterized as a rectangular room where the focus was directed to the front where theinstructor exercised complete control of the pace, content, and sequence of activities byusing a blackboard and an overhead projector However, the traditional style ofinstruction, where the teacher delivers the information and students sit silently takingnotes, is slowly being replaced with student-centered learning (Nair, 2000) Thisimplies that the traditional type of seating arrangement (desk rows) should besubstituted by more flexible ones, such as U-shape, modular or circular to fosterinteraction among students themselves, support communication with teachers, andmotivate individual students to learn Halpern (1994) share the same thoughts withNair (2000) that effective learning rarely occurs passively Therefore, educators havecome to realize that effective instruction focuses on active involvement of students intheir own learning, with opportunities for teacher and peer interactions that engagestudents’ natural curiosity (Halpern, 1994:11)

McCorskey & McVetta (1978) claim that classroom seating arrangements arethe most important part of establishing the physical classroom environment A goodclassroom seating arrangement will set the overall atmosphere, or mood and further thestage for teacher student relationships When considering that classroom seatingarrangements are organized by teachers into logical, methodical design structures thatbest facilitate student learning and make use of the teacher’s individual teaching style,problems can arise when teachers do not choose their seating arrangements carefullyand meaningfully (O’Hare, 1998)

However, it may be hard for teachers to choose a certain seating arrangement,the problem that frequently surfaces is this: what classroom seating arrangement is themost effective Undoubtedly, this works under the proposition that there are someseating arrangements that are more effective than others (McCorskey & McVetta,

1978) In other words, there are seating arrangements that do more harm than good for

a teacher wishing to establish rules, standards, and regulations on the first day that lastthrough the remaining time he/she has with a given set of students If these most basicneeds are not met – that is, establishing boundaries for students based on the schematicstructure of the classroom’s seating – then it presents challenges for the teacher’seffectiveness (Becker, Sommer, Bee, & Oxley, 1973)

From my point of view, the most important thing here to consider is that theeffectiveness of classroom seating arrangement is a measurable, observablephenomenon, since there are underlying factors that allow certain arrangements towork better than others (Cooperative Research Program, 1965) In a way, to consider

“effectiveness” means to think about correlation: comparing several possible seatingarrangements with respect to the common data inherent in each Though

“effectiveness” is always relative to the teacher’s teaching style, the size of the class,and other elements of the physical classroom that no teacher nor any one seatingarrangement can control (i.e where the door or windows are located, where the teachermight situate their desk, if there are any built-in bookshelves or free-standing ones, andthe placement and size of chalkboard/white board in the wall), the purpose of this study

is to show, through the appropriation of measurable student-specific and observableteacher-related data, that there are, indeed, certain classroom seating arrangements thatare theoretically more effective

2. Aims of the study and research questions

The aim of this study is to explore two elements in relation to classroom seatingarrangements The first element is students’ preferences for different seatingarrangements and the reasons for their choices The second one is students’ on-task/off-task participation in two different seating arrangements, the rows and columns and thecircles

To achieve the above overarching aim, the study raises three questions for exploration:Question 1: Does classroom seating arrangement affect students’ on-task/off-task

participation in cooperative learning activities?

Question 2: If so, in what ways do classroom seating arrangements affect students’ task/off-task behavior?

on-Question 3: What preferences do students have for different classroom seatingarrangements? And why?

3. Scope of the study

Although there are various seating arrangements for lecture halls, classroomsand laboratories, this study focuses on four basic types of classroom seatingarrangements They are: desk rows, U-shape, modular and circular

The study is conducted within the investigation and the application of classroomseating arrangements in academic setting at Vietnam National University ofAgriculture in Hanoi with English classes as sample

Finally, it is ideal to apply other universities, where different seatingarrangements are available Due to time constraint, geographical distance, financialdifficulty 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 andexperience Therefore, the thesis should only be regarded as a preliminary study withtentative conclusions

4. 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

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 surveyquestionnaires

Comments on the statistics come from consultation with the supervisor,discussion with colleagues and the author’s personal observation as well as her ownexperience

5. Design of the study

The study consists of three main parts:

Part I: Introduction

In this part, the rationale, aims and scope of the study are presented along withmethodology and design of the study This gives the reader the basic knowledge andoverall structure of the study

Part II: Development - This part includes the following chapters

Chapter 1: Literature review

Part III: Conclusion

This part restates and summarizes the main points of this study as well asdiscuss the teaching implications and some notes for future researchers

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Literature review

Plenty of researches was found in the area of Cooperative Learning (CL) andhow teachers could make use of this technique in language classrooms However,limited research was found on how to use suitable seating arrangements that could fitthis CL teaching method (Cornell, 2002; Kennedy, 2002) Most of the studies found inthe field of seating arrangement and classroom furniture either focused on students’ on-task behavior in relation to different seating arrangements (Anderson, 2009; Bonus &Riordan, 1998; McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Rosenfield, Lambert & Black, 1985) ordiscussed classroom ecology (Becker, Sommer, Bee, & Oxley, 1973; Savanur, Altekar

& De, 2007)

1.1. Cooperative Learning (CL): Definition and benefits

CL is defined by Slavin (1980) and Tuan (2010) as teaching and “instructional”techniques where students are put into groups to work on a certain activity in order toencourage student’s interaction, thus, maximizing student learning In their definition

of CL, Allen (2006) and Yamarik (2007) agree that CL should be characterized byindividual responsibility and positive interdependence among students while working

on group activities together Totten (1991) stressed differentiating between the idea ofgroup work and cooperative learning as a teaching/learning technique He explainedthat CL was more than just students put into groups for an activity On the contrary, heagreed with Allen (2006) that CL involved direct interaction among students, havingheterogeneous groups and a practice of social skills (Totten, 1991) Benefits of CLinclude enhancing cognitive growth of students, increasing students’ motivation andself-confidence in addition to maximizing students’ interaction (Allen, 2006; Bandiera

& Bruno, 2006; Tuan, 2010)

Differences between CL and other group work patterns were introduced byJohnson and Johnson (1999) They said there were four types of group work: pseudolearning group, traditional classroom learning group, cooperative learning group, and

high-performance cooperative learning group In the first category, Johnson andJohnson (1999) explain, students are not interested in working in groups because, inmost cases, they are aware that they will be individually evaluated The secondcategory, however, is when students are assigned to work in groups and they acceptthat they have to work on the activity together The third and fourth categories arewhen students are aware of the benefits of CL and all members of the group worktowards accomplishing common goals A major difference is that the fourth category

“out-performs” due to students’ exceptional devotion to their group while working onthe activity (Johnson & Johnson, 1999)

1.2. Basic classroom seating arrangements

Classrooms are the places where educational activities are conducted at thehighest In arranging the classrooms such factors as the number of students, quality andcolor of the walls and furniture, inside temperature, illumination, air-conditioning,cleanness and the arrangement of the students in the classroom have an indirect butimportant effects on their levels of learning With one glance at a classroom, anexperienced 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 thestudents and the teachers The kind of communication as well as the amount ofcommunication that occurs in the classroom has long been thought to be partially afunction of the seating arrangement of students While there probably is an infinitenumber of ways of arranging a classroom, there are most common: traditional,horseshoe, and modular

As mentioned in the previous section, there are three seating arrangements thatwere significant in managing student behavior According to Weinstein (1979), due tothe lack of space within a classroom, teachers are generally limited to using threeclassroom seating arrangements; row seating, cluster seating, and horseshoe seating

Figure 1: Row seating

In row seating, desks are place in either vertical or horizontal straight lines.Research in the row seating arrangement showed both positive and negative effects onstudent behavior According to Atherton (2005), when students are placed in rows it isconvened that students should be passive learners and are only meant to be seen andnot heard in the classroom Hastings and Schweiso (1995) found that the row seatingarrangement improved on-task behavior and that the behavior of students who were themost disruptive improved while sitting in this arrangement Lam and Wheldall (1987)found positive behavior from students who were seated in rows, in fact their on-taskbehaviors doubled

However, a study done by Rosenfield, et al (1985) found an increase in off-taskbehavior when using the row seating arrangement in a fifth grade class Rosenfield, et

al (1985) also acknowledged that row seating was not a favorable arrangement toimprove student off-task behaviors and found it to be the least effective In anotherstudy that focused primarily on seating arrangement and students asking questions,Marx, Further and Hartig (2000) found that students ask their teacher more questionswhen were arranged in row seating Rual and Wannarka (2008) indicated that a class’seating arrangement should be based on the particular activities that the students areengaged in at the moment Rual and Wannarka (2008) also added that if students areworking on independent or individual assignments, they should be seating in an

arrangement that would create less interaction with their peers, such as row seating.

Figure 2: Cluster seating

This seating has a group of four desks touching each other on the samehorizontal lines and the right and left vertical lines of the desk which is also known asgroup seating These clusters provide safe and comfortable environments for students

to share ideas However, it also lends itself to off-task behavior and large increase innoise level and distractions Rosenfield, et al (1985) found that cluster seating had apositive effect on social interaction and that more students were actively participatingduring class discussions According to Papalia (1994), cluster seating allows student toparticipate in remedial activities, games, and promotes peer assistance Marx, et al.(2000), noted that cluster seating fostered an environment that allowed interact withone another because of their close proximity Atherton (2005) discusses that clusterseating can foster an active and engaging learning environment

Figure 3: U-shape/horseshoe and Circle seating

The final seating arrangement is horseshoe seating or u-shaped seating Desksare arranged in a way that resembles like a horseshoe According to Wengal (1992), inthis seating arrangement there was an elevated amount of talking from the students.But on the other hand this seating arrangement allowed teacher’s lesson to be moreengaging for students This seating arrangement promoted participation andappropriate behavior Papalia (1994) established that the horseshoe seatingarrangement allowed students to be able to pay attention to the teacher, make eyecontact, and allowed the teacher to have control of the class Rosenfield, et al., (1985)acknowledged that if teachers wanted their students to interact more during classdiscussion, horseshoe seating arrangement is the best design to be considered

Based on classroom design, a student’s behavior can be affected in either apositive or negative way According to Black (2007), poor seating arrangements canaffect students’ learning by 50% Therefore, in order for a teacher to create a learningenvironment that is conducive for all learners, classroom arrangement has to be takinginto consideration Making small changes such as moving desks to improve behaviorand foster learning, is minimal when compared to other drastic interventions that arebeing used to remove problematic students Additionally, classroom modifications aresometimes needed and can result in a more positive classroom environment forteachers and students As a result, teachers can teach effectively and student

performance can be enhanced.

1.3. Classroom seating arrangement and students’ on-task behavior

Research shows that classroom seating arrangement could affect students’behavior (Anderson, 2009; Bonus & Riordan, 1998; “classroom configuration,” 2006;Kaya & Burgess, 2007; Lei, 2010; Philpott, 1993; Rosenfield et al., 1985; Wannarka &Ruhl, 2008) It is believed that spatial arrangements in classrooms where students haveenough space to move and work on their activities positively affect students’ on-taskbehavior and social interaction (Kaya & Burgess, 2007) Baron (1992) believed thatseating arrangements should be treated as a priority when thinking of a classroom withmaximum on-task behavior Wannarka and Ruhl (2008) explained that decidingwhether students’ behavior is on-task or not depends, to a great extent, on the nature ofthe activity and the desired communication pattern inside the class They gave theexample that if teachers want to guarantee on-task behavior during individual work,they should arrange their classroom furniture in rows and columns so as to minimizestudent-student interaction However, if the purpose of the class is to have interactionamong the students and the teacher, it would be better to let students sit either in a U-shape or in circles (Bennet & Blundell, 1983; Hastings & Schweiso, 1995; Rosenfield

et al., 1985) Bonus and Riordan (1998) further highlighted this idea that theeffectiveness of any seating arrangement depends on the activity done in class

On-task behavior, according to Rosenfield et al (1985) and Wannarka and Ruhl(2008), includes actions done towards working on the activity at hand as well as anyverbal or physical action that builds towards the contribution to the class activity.These verbal and physical actions include students raising their hands to ask a questionregarding the activity or commenting and/or discussing a certain element that leads tothe completion of the activity On the other hand, off task behavior includes instanceswhere students talk out of turn or move around the class without permission or with nopurpose (Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008) Downer, Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta (2007) believethat effective learning takes place when the classroom design “fosters student

engagement.” By studying three different seating arrangements, rows and columns,clusters and circles, and their effect on students’ classroom behavior, Rosnefield et al.(1985) found that sitting in circles encouraged more student on-task behavior and oralresponse among students and between the students and the teacher than did the rowsand columns.

In their study on the effect of classroom seating arrangement on students’behavior, Rosenfield et al (1985) observed three experimental classrooms of fifth andsixth grades during class discussions in rows, clusters and circles They observedcertain behaviors like hand-raising, listening, discussion comments, on-task out-of-order comments, oral responses, as well as withdrawal and off-task behaviors Majorresults of their research showed that there were no significant differences in listening,discussion comments and disruptive behaviors as related to the different seatingarrangements However, Rosenfield et al (1985) have shown that the circles deskarrangement resulted in a greater number of on-task, out-of-order response and on taskbehaviors than did the rows and columns At the same time, clusters resulted in a greatnumber of on-task behaviors and more hand-raising than did the rows The number ofwithdrawal and off-task behaviors was much greater in the rows and columns settingthan those resulted in the circles

By examining the U-shape seating arrangement and its effect on students’interaction, Wengel (1992) found that this arrangement enabled teachers to have a moreactive and collaborative class where students were able to interact with the teacher aswell as with each other Wengel (1992) added that this could be considered evidencethat the U-shape arrangement contributed to students’ on-task behavior which, in turn,enhanced their learning since, in this arrangement, students get the opportunity to shareinformation and exchange ideas, thus, maximizing their learning space Similarly, thecluster arrangement was reported to be suitable for self-instructional material andgrouping of students according to their needs and interests (Papalia, 1994 as cited inBonus & Riordan, 1998) Papalia (1994) added that the rows and columns setting best

suits individual activities, testing and introducing new material to the students (Ascited in Bonus & Riordan, 1998) This, in fact, conforms to the idea that the teacher isencouraged to use a seating arrangement where students can actually see each other ifhe/she aims at student-student interaction.

In his study, Wengel (1992) investigated the factors influencing teachers’choices of seating arrangements and what the best seating arrangement to use was Thestudy depended on observing four teachers in the 1st – 4th grades and interviewingthem Teachers participating in the study used the horseshoe, rows and columns andclusters settings for the first, second and third grades respectively The fourth gradeteacher used a random arrangement (researcher did not describe how this arrangementlooked like exactly) Teachers’ interviews covered topics like teachers’ backgrounds,classroom activities, type of instruction used, and teachers’ opinions of seatingarrangements Class observations focused on monitoring students’ behavior in differentfurniture arrangements Analysis of these observations included whether students wereon-task or off-task, at the desk or not and whether they were working alone or not

Wengel (1992) stated that there was no one seating arrangement that was betterthan the other He has explained that choosing a seating arrangement should be based

on the class needs, the interaction patterns aimed at and the teaching styles In fact,results of both Rosenfield et al (1985) and Wengel (1992) conform to what classroommanagement books claim that when seated facing each other, students get a betterchance to interact and adopt more on-task behaviors

1.4. Students’ and teacher’s role and classroom arrangement

Teachers and students alike have different views and ideas about their rolesinside the class Lam and Lawrence (2002) explained that the teacher, in most cases, isviewed as being responsible for everything in class Teachers are the one who decidedwhat to teach and how to teach it (Lam & Lawrence, 2002, p 296) Accordingly,deciding on a specific seating arrangement depends on the teacher’s beliefs and whathe/she thinks his/her role inside the class is Accordingly, a teacher who believes in

having a teacher centered class is likely to adopt the rows and columns setting wherestudents’ attention is directed to him/her and where minimum student-studentinteraction is allowed (Kaya & Burgess, 2007; Rosenfield et al., 1985).

Based on this concept, Sommer (1967) said that, in a rows and columnsclassroom, students sitting in the front rows are more likely to participate than thosesitting at the back due to their proximity to the teacher Becker et al (1973) had a study

on students’ participation in different classroom sizes and arrangements Major resultsrevealed that students in the small rows and columns classes participated more thanthose in larger classes On the other hand, students in laboratory classes experiencedmore interaction among all members of the class including the teacher who followedthe pattern of “walk and comment” while moving among students to discuss theirperformance and follow up with their projects (Becker et al., 1973) Despite theirinteresting results, Becker et al (1973) did not explain exactly how the seats in thelaboratory class were arranged Becker et al.’s (1973) study was interested inexamining the amount of student participation in classrooms of different sizes anddifferent seating arrangements The first part of this study dealt with measuring studentparticipation in a regular rows and columns, lecture-based classroom Studentparticipation was measured in terms of time It was found that students had moreopportunity to participate in classes of small size (6 – 20 students) Becker et al (1973)reported that when they tried to change the traditional rows and columns arrangement

to a circular one, students changed it immediately before the teacher came to class andrestored the arrangement back to the rows and columns Only one class accepted thecircular setting which resulted in more student participation

As introduced by Lam and Lawrence (2002), the teacher’s role diminishes if theclass is more student-centered In their study on variations in teacher’s and students’roles in a computer-based project in a Spanish class, Lam and Lawrence (2002)collected data through class observations, student focus groups, students and teacher’squestionnaire and teacher’s interviews A class of 33 university students of Spanish as a

Foreign Language participated in the study Students were asked to work on a classproject in pairs where they had to create a webpage using Netscape Composersoftware Students were given a handout about how to get started with the software andwere then encouraged to learn how to use the software through trial and error Theteacher was present during all class time while students were working on the projectand there was also a co-researcher acting as a technical advisor because the teacher wasnot familiar with the software Both the students and the teacher responded to aquestionnaire before the beginning of the study about their ideas regarding their roles

in the classroom Two observers were present during the project After the projectended, students were given another questionnaire to collect their feedback on theproject and its effectiveness

Results of Lam and Lawrence’s (2002) study showed that although neither theteacher’s nor the students’ roles hugely changed, both of them were aware, towards theend of the study, of the “fluidity of their classroom” (p 295) Although, in thebeginning of the experiment, it was noted that students depended on the teacher as amain source of information, they started to consult each other and depend more on oneanother by the end of the experiment which highlighted the teacher’s role as afacilitator rather than a source of knowledge

Johnson and Johnson (1999) also stressed the fact that cooperative learningtechniques best work when students are well trained to work in groups They added thatteachers need to have set objectives and directions concerning students’ learning outcomes,grouping methods, and assessment plans before integrating CL activities in their classes

Conclusion

Literature about cooperative learning stresses the concept that studentsinteracting together while working on group activities encourages more learning aswell as developing social skills that will help students in an out-of-the-class context.Findings of this literature about seating arrangements show that when students sitfacing each other, they have a better opportunity to talk to each other which helps them

develop on-task behavior (Rosenfield et al., 1985; Sommer, 1967) However, otherfindings show that there is not much difference in the quality of student learning(Adams, 2009) or the students’ and teacher’s roles (Lam & Lawrence, 2002) This is inaddition to the findings that both gender and personality differences highly affectstudent participation in class In addition, none of the studies mentioned in this chapteroffered a sample of the activity done in class while trying different seatingarrangements which could be counted as one major variable that could affect students’participation.

This study aims to explore this area of seating arrangements and students’participation while working on CL activities in EFL classes within the Vietnamesecontext In addition, there is a gap in research where the area of student preferences inrelation to seating arrangements has not been examined while monitoring students’actual participation rate in CL activities For this reason, a focus on studentparticipation in relation to seating arrangement as well as to their personal preferences

is needed

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

Because of the condition of the place where the study took place, it can onlyfocus on examining students’ participation while working on in-class cooperativelearning activities in two different seating arrangements; rows and columns and circles

It looked at the quality of students’ comments to see whether different seatingarrangements contributed to students’ completion of the task or not In this chapter, afull description of the data collection methods and data analysis tools is also presented

2.1 Setting and Participants

The study took place in Vietnam National University of Agriculture in Gia Lamdistrict, Hanoi city The majority of students have been learning English since theywere in lower secondary schools This means by the time they enter university, theyhave at least 7 or more years of experience in learning English Their secondary yearswere spent with the new textbooks and the two aspects: learner-centered approach andcommunicative language teaching (CLT) When it comes to English lessons, the schooldivides students into four groups or levels The students who are in the first group arethe most competent in English and vice versa

A total of 43 students participated in this research Participants were enrolled inthe second level of English Two classes were selected randomly to participate in thestudy over a period of three weeks Class 1 had 16 students (3 males and 13 females)and was taught by the researcher while Class 2, with 27 students (5 males and 22females) was taught by another teacher Most students in two classes are not good atlistening and speaking the target language but they can do written exercises on Englishgrammar accurately They do not feel confident in communicating in English and many

of them still keep silent and do not participate in the activities of lessons

2.2. Procedure

Both classes met twice a week for about two hour each Classes usually met in aregular rows and columns classroom where the seats were bolted to the floor For thisstudy, participating students had their classes in two different settings; the regular

rows-and-columns classroom and a meeting room where the students could sit incircles around tables.

In the first data collection stage, students were asked to respond to a short form questionnaire about which seating arrangement they thought they would like themost and why (See Appendix A) The questionnaire had three questions The first oneasked students to rate themselves on a scale of 1 – 5 as to whether they considerthemselves shy or talkative inside the class This question aimed to collect data aboutstudents’ perceptions about their personal attributes that could affect participation rateinside the class The second question provided diagrams of the two seatingarrangements being examined; the rows and columns and the circles layout, and askedstudents to choose which one they would prefer to have in their classes The lastquestion asked students to state the reasons for their choices in the second question.The questionnaire activated students’ knowledge about different seating arrangementsthat they may not have experienced before The questionnaire also aimed to collectdata that would provide answers to the third and fourth research questions aboutstudent preferences for the two different seating arrangements and their self-report ofhow far they were shy/talkative inside the class

free-The second data collection stage involved videotaping students while working

on cooperative learning activities The videos focused on the same group in each class.Each group was videotaped while working on the activity in both seatingarrangements Students were given a writing prompt based on readings they discussed

in class and were asked to write a detailed outline for their essays in groups The sameactivity design, but with a different topic, was repeated in both seating arrangementsand within the same groups in order to easily monitor the effect of seatingarrangements on students’ participation Each group then presented their outline to therest of the class for discussion so that each student could start writing his/her first draft

of the essay

During the last week of the data collection period, students were asked to

respond to a ten minute reflective paper commenting on which seating arrangementthey liked the most while working on CL activities and why (See Appendix B) Thispaper had a set of questions that asked the students which seating arrangement theyliked the most, how they felt towards each seating arrangement, and which of thesearrangements helped them complete the activity more efficiently and why It wasexpected that experiencing different seating arrangements would at least help alertstudents to the importance of classroom seating arrangement to their learning.

This paper aimed to collect data to answer the first two research questionswhere it attempted to relate their answers to the last question in the questionnaire, theirperformance as recorded on the videos and their reply as to which seating arrangementthey preferred the most and how it helped them learn This paper also helped to answerthe last research question by comparing students’ responses to the questionnaire tothose of the reflective paper at the end of the data collection process

2.3. Data analysis

To answer the research questions, descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis

of students’ responses to the questionnaire and the ten-minute reflective paper wereused In the free-form questionnaire, a count of how many male and female studentspreferred which seating arrangement was done In addition to this, a simple tally ofstudents’ reasons for their choices took place The element of personality differences,

as mentioned by students’ self-report about how shy/talkative they are in class, wasalso taken into consideration while analyzing the data especially in comparison to theactual performance of students videotaped while working on CL activities

Data from the videos, transcribed and coded to see how the two different seatingarrangements affected students’ participation, were analyzed in two ways First, thenumber of turns taken by each student in the group was counted This includedinstances where any of the students were silently reading or writing something thatcontributed to the task; this was also counted as a turn In addition to this, the number

of comments made by each student and number of words for these comments were also

counted for each student in order to look at the quality of comments made by studentswhile working on the activity.

Second, students’ comments while working with their group members werecoded according to whether these comments were on-task or not These are on-taskcomments/behavior and off-task comments/behavior; each category broken intosubparts The category of on-task comments/behavior was divided into five mainsubparts which were:

(1.1) asking others for help/advice (e.g “Do you know what this mean?”, “What doyou think?”, “should I write ‘on the other hand’?” or asking the teacher for feedback), (1.2) offering opinion/expert advice (e.g “Ok, Minh, you have to add …” and “Youknow why? Because you won’t find any better ideas We’ll move them to anotherone.”)

(1.3) taking a stand (e.g “ok, then this is the second idea and this is the third one,”

“no” and “I don’t think so”),

(1.4) group management (e.g “Dung, remember you’re working with us as onegroup.”),

(1.5) silent on-task behavior (e.g reading/writing or checking their cell phonedictionaries for meanings of words)

Off-task comments/behavior was subcategorized into:

(2.1) students using their laptops or cellphones and

(2.2) students chatting with friends Data collected from both video recordings for eachclass were then compared to each other to answer the first and second researchquestions

Comments coded as offering opinion or expert advice (codes 1.2.1 and 1.2.2)and code 1.5 were considered of high quality since they offered suggestions orexplanations that built towards the completion of the task while those coded as taking astand (codes 1.3) were considered of medium quality since students expressed theiropinions about a suggested answer but they added nothing to the completion of the

task Subcategories 1.1.1, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are also of medium quality since their alsorelated to the completion of the task indirectly while code 1.1.2 was counted of lowquality because students, in this case, only checked their group members understandwhere they were doing without contributing to the task at hand as was code 1.4

Data from the ten-minute paper was also analyzed by descriptive statisticsthrough counting how many students preferred each of the classroom seatingarrangements as well as looking at the main reasons for their preferences and how theyfelt towards both furniture arrangements Their comments before and afterexperiencing the two settings were also compared to each other by looking closely atthe responses of each student individually in both the questionnaire and the ten-minutepaper in order to see if students thought of the seating arrangement as one of the factorsthat might affect their participation rate and learning process or not This was done inorder to answer the third, fourth and fifth research questions about what students think

of their preferences for the two different seating arrangements in relation to their report about how shy/talkative they thought they were in class

self-Data was analyzed and presented using bar graphs of students’ responses to theshy/talkative question, their preferences for seating arrangements before and afterexperiencing both of them, and the number of turns, comments, and words for each ofthe students videotaped Comparison between students’ responses to both thequestionnaire and the reflective paper as well as their actual performance on the videoswas also done in order to be able to closely see whether classroom seatingarrangements affects their participation and, if they did, what the effects really were

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, a full description of the results obtained from data collected ispresented Three data sets were collected for this study; the questionnaire, videotapedsessions and the reflective paper at the end The first section of this chapter coversresults obtained from the questionnaire Results for each class will be presentedseparately, providing the necessary graphs to highlight certain numbers that will bereferred to later in the discussion chapter The second section of this chapter presentsdata collected from the videos A total of four sessions were videotaped, two sessions

in each class This section will also present the data for each class separately The lastpart of this chapter covers the results of the 10-minute reflective paper given to thestudents at the end of the research

3.1. Questionnaire

Before experiencing both seating arrangements, students in both classes wereasked to respond to a questionnaire of three questions This questionnaire aimed tocollect data about students’ views of how shy/talkative they were as well as theirpreferences for the two seating arrangements and the reasons for their choices The firstquestion asked the students to rate themselves on a scale of 1 – 5 whether they considerthemselves shy or talkative They were then asked to choose which seatingarrangement, rows and columns or circles, they would prefer more for their classes.The last question asked them to think of reasons for their choices in the secondquestion (See appendix A)

Students’ responses to the first question show that, in Class 1, 3 studentsconsidered themselves shy students in class where they chose 1 on the scale Four otherstudents chose point 2 while five students chose point 3 on the scale Three and twostudents from Class 1 chose point 4 and 5 respectively on the shy/talkative scale

Figure 4 Students' responses to Question 1 about talkativeness

(Class 1)

Responses from Class 2 showed that two students considered themselves shy inclass while four other students chose point 2 on the scale Six students chose point 3 onthe scale and three other students chose point four Only two students in class 2reported they were talkative students in class.

Figure 5 Students' responses to Question 1 about talkativeness

(Class 2)

In response to the second question, 6 out of 16 students in Class 1 said theywould prefer the regular rows and columns seating arrangement for their classes whilethe rest said they would like to have their class seating to be arranged in circles InClass 2; however, 12 out of 17 students said they would like to be seated in circlesduring classes (See Figure 6)

Figure 6: Students' responses to Question 2 about seating arrangement preferences

in questionnaire and 10-minute paper

Table 1 shows the main reasons for choosing the rows and columns or thecircles seating arrangement as reported by students in both classes Responses ofstudents included reasons like sitting in circles would make it easier for them tocommunicate and talk together (See Appendix G for more details about students’responses to questions 2 and 3) In Class 1, four students said they preferred thecircles seating arrangement for better communication among group members andthree of them said it helped them maintain eye contact with the rest of the group.One student chose the circles seating arrangement because “sitting in rows andcolumns is boring” and because the circles would motivate him more Twostudents reported that sitting in circles meant having less number of students inclass while two students said that the circles seating arrangement would help themunderstand more in class Three students who chose the rows and columns seatingarrangement said that it was more organized and two of them said that it was more

comfortable to them Another student chose the rows and columns because shewas used to it Two students reported that the rows and columns enabled classdiscussions while one student said that it encouraged sharing ideas.

Table 1: Reasons for choosing both seating arrangement (both classes)

Less number of students in class 2 1

among all group members and maintain eye contact with group members as reported

by eight students from Class 2 Two students reported that the circles seatingarrangement would be more comfortable and friendly while one student said thathaving the class furniture arranged in circles meant having less number of students inclass Six students said the circles seating arrangement would help them concentratemore in class while eight students said it would be easier to share ideas in thisarrangement Three students said it was more comfortable for them to sit in rows andcolumns, four said this seating arrangement enabled the teacher to see all students inclass while two other students said that the rows and columns seating arrangement wasmore academic On the other hand, seven of the students who preferred the rows andcolumns seating arrangement said that it would help them concentrate more while fivestudents said it was more organized

3.2. Video

In this section, each video is briefly described In addition, results obtained fromthe videos are presented in terms of the number of turns and number of comments foreach student as well as the total number of on-task comments and off-task instances Abreakdown of individual comments made by the students is also presented

3.2.1. Video 1: Class 1 seated in rows and columns

This video was taped in the regular classroom where seats were arranged in rows andcolumns Students were instructed to write an outline for a writing question about culturedifferences between Vietnam and a country they choose They were encouraged to use thesupplementary documents the teacher provided An, Phương, Mai and Dung were thestudents videotaped during this class session Phương, Dung and Mai were seated besideeach other while An was seated one chair away from the rest of the group For the first threeminutes, Dung was confused about what the task was about while Mai and Phươngexplained to her what they were supposed to do When Dung understood the task, An toldthe group that he was also confused At that moment, Dung explained the task to him.During the next two minutes, they all brainstormed for ideas However, An then started to

write in his own notebook while Phương, Mai and Dung started developing their ownversion of the outline An kept writing his own version until the end of the class Wheneverthe instructor reminded him that he was part of the group, he told her that he knew and that

he worked with his group members This took place three times over a period of 30 minutes.Whenever this took place, An would get involved in a 1-2 minute dialog with the groupmembers to check that his ideas matched those of the rest of the group Throughout theactivity, Dung leaned back a little in her chair while Phương and Mai turned their bodies sothat they would be able to see each other while working on the activity Whenever An wasinvolved with working with the group, Mai would also lean back so that An would seeall group members

The total number of turns taken by group members in this seating arrangement was110; An took six turns and Phương took 22 turns Mai and Dung took 37 and 45 turnsrespectively The total number of comments made by An was eight while Phương made 63comments Mai and Dung made 43 and 57 comments respectively (See figure 7)

Figure 7: Number of turns and comments for each student

(Class 1: rows and columns)

Table 2 shows the total number of comments made in each video A total of 171comments were made by students in Class 1 when seated in the rows and columns Ten

of these comments were off-task instances; Dung and Phương had three instances eachwhere they checked their cell phones during classes and two instances each where theychatted with each other and with another student in another group (for details of thedefinition of the code numbers, see Appendix C)

Table 2: Number of comments in each video

Figure 8 shows the total number of comments made by the group in eachcategory in both videos An made a total of eight comments; one comment where heasked for clarification (code 1.1.1), another comment where he explained a point togroup members (code 1.2.1), two comments offering suggestions for answers (code1.2.2), one comment where he showed understanding of a certain point (code 1.2.3)and three comments of agreement to a suggested answer (code 1.3.1) Phương had atotal of 63 comments, 18 of which were silent on-task instances since she was thegroup’s writer (code 1.5) She made 10 comments of explaining something to groupmembers (Code 1.2.1), and eight suggestions to complete the task (code 1.2.2) Sevencomments of agreement (code 1.3.1), three of disagreement (code 1.3.2) and four ofexpressing opinion about a suggestion (code 1.3.3) were also made by Phương duringthe activity She also asked for clarifications five times (code 1.1.1) and asked hergroup members for suggestions three times (code 1.1.2) Five off-task instances werenoted in Phương’s total number of comments (code 2.1 and 2.2).

Figure 8: Number of comments made by students in Class 1 in each category

(in number)