From rows to groups : meeting the challenges

In this final part of the series on changing the classroom desk configuration from rows to groups (see Part1 and Part 2), I consider some of the challenges resulting from the changeover.

Learning together about working in groups

I’m still in the early days of learning to be an effective mathematics teacher, and arguably learning how to manage group activities introduces another level of complexity. One thing I did realise early on was the need to be explicit with students about the reasons why I rearranged the desks and we regularly discussed how to make the group configuration work better. I also asked students through my anonymous class surveys for their feedback. They told me they appreciated the group configuration, but did highlight areas I need to work on. Their main concerns were: that the group seating encourages them to be less focused; that sometimes it was hard to work alone without being distracted; and that during whole class instruction, the layout sometimes made it hard to see the teacher.  All of which begs the question - what about when we aren't doing group work?

How does the group configuration work with Direct Instruction?

As summarised by Hattie (2009),  Direct Instruction occurs when “the teacher decides learning intentions and success criteria, makes them transparent to students, demonstrates them by modelling, evaluates if they understand what they have been told by checking for understanding, and retelling what they have been told by tying it all together with closure” (p. 206).  Two other key elements are guided practice (in class) and independent practice (outside class). Hattie reports that Direct Instruction has one of the highest effect sizes (d=0.59) of all teaching strategies, so it remains an important tool in our kit - especially when understood as something other than just lecturing at students. A learning program designed exclusively on group activities has the potential to miss out on teacher modelling and guided practice, demonstrated to be particularly important when developing procedural knowledge (Marzano 2007, p.80) as well as opportunities for review*. Hattie is clear however that we do not need to choose between teacher-centred teaching or student-centred learning – we can and should achieve a blend of the two approaches.

So in this mixed-mode teaching environment, the classroom configuration needs to support Direct Instruction. When it's time for guided practice, the group configuration does seem to be at a disadvantage to the row configuration, it seems to require more effective classroom management skills to ensure students can work without distractions.  To help with the classroom management, I have two standalone desks on the side and move students who can’t focus to those desks temporarily. When it comes to teacher modelling – usually most efficiently done as whole-class instruction – the group configuration can make it harder for students who are ‘side on’ to see and hear clearly. I’m still working on optimising the sight lines for some desk and will experiment this year with students turning out their desks as needed.

So is rearranging the furniture worth it?  

Moving from rows to groups is certainly not without challenges, and the mere act of physically moving desks doesn’t magically transform teaching and learning. However it seems provide strong support for the outcomes I seek: learners working together, solving problems, sharing their learning and hopefully enjoying their time in math class. Looking at the bigger picture, I’m aiming to create an environment where students manage their own learning and develop the skills and inclinations to work effectively and creatively with others. These are the critical skills that will help my students in their future lives, more than their ability to factorise non-monic quadratic expressions (as much as I think that’s important!).

References

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning : A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.  Oxon : Routledge.

Marzano, R. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Update and a warning....
There is some research that strongly advises against arranging desks in group cluster. Here is an article from the Guardian that points at the work. Need to do some more thinking ...
Here is post by Pak Liam with a different take Classroom desk arrangements; Rows, Clusters or U Shape?

* This year I’m planning for students to take turns to perform the role of conducting reviews for the class – Reciprocal Teaching (d=0.74 !) More than one way to bake this cake!

Standards Based Grading meets Marzano

Robert Marzano has been reviewing education research for decades and summarised his findings in a practical and concise teacher guide "The Art and Science of Teaching". (Marzano, 2007). So let's put our Standard Based Grading [SBG] hat on, and consider the key ideas from Marzano's first chapter, which asks the question:  "What will I do to establish and communicate learning goals, track student progress and celebrate success?"

The following ideas read almost straight out of the SBG credo:

Distinguish between learning goals and learning activities : It's important not to confuse learning goals with learning activities. A learning goal typically is stated in the form "Students will understand ____________ and be able to ____________".   Following Marzano, it is best practice to build our SBG standards on goals - not activities.  (Action Step#1, p. 17)

Write a rubric or scale for each learning goal: Marzano recommends a finely grained scale be defined for each learning goal. While he says a simple one is sufficient, which appears to be the way most SBG teachers are working, a finely grained scale provides more value. I'm not sure though if this is feasible when there are many standards for a topic - it may well overload the student and the teacher. (Action Step#2, p.19)

Assess students using a formative approach: Don't wait until the end of the unit - assess as you go. Yep - that's SBG. (Action Step#4, p.24)

Have students chart their progress on each learning goal: Well if this doesn't just scream SBG at you, I don't know what does. Marzano emphasises the importance of students evaluating their progress on each goal, as well as setting achievement targets and strategies. An implied caution for teachers using automated software for their SBG tracking is to ensure students engage with the data in a meaningful way - there is a risk the student could just look at a pre-generated graph and move on.  Marzano provides a proforma how a student can extend their chart into an active learning plan. (Action Step#5, p25)

Recognise and celebrate growth: Use the feedback about progress in SBG goals to show student growth - not just absolute achievements. (Action Step#6)

Marzano also offers a suggestion which can be used to extend SBG:

Have students identify their own learning goals: I love this idea! Extend the standards to allow each student to set an additional personal learning goal for what interests them, or what they would like to achieve for the current topic. While tracking student progress for their unique goal may add complexity, it seems like a valuable idea. A suggestion for those using Active Grade or some other automated system (Excel anyone?): make a standard called "Student Selected Standard" which can be marked off for all students - then a separate table somewhere to record what those selections were and how the student and teacher agreed it would be assessed. What a powerful meta-cognitive strategy! (Action Step#3, p.23) 

All up - SBG as currently formulated matches 5 out of 6 of Marzano's recommendations in his first chapter, indeed Action Step#5 is arguably a prescription for SBG. Marzano is highly influential in the US education scene (and beyond) - so if people are asking you "Why are you doing SBG? Where is your evidence?" point them at Marzano's work and make the links to SBG. (Bonus: Amazon has the book on sale for $10.11!)

In concluding this tour of four different approaches to effective teaching, it is remarkable to observe all four approaches recommend similar, or at least complementary, strategies - many of which are at the core of the SBG idea. The Circle of Courage shows how SBG can contribute to psychosocial growth through mastery and independence, while providing opportunities to develop a sense of belonging and to practice generosity. Andrew Martin's work shows us how SBG can help build academic resilience and combat fear of failure by demonstrating to students how effort, strategy and attitude are the basis for improved performance and mastery. John Hattie's Visible Learning shows how the feedback provided by SBG can be used as a powerful tool for improving teaching practice - that SBG is as much a tool for transforming teaching as it is for transforming learning. And finally, Marzano reaffirms we are on the right track, and suggests extending our standards to include student selected standards.

A closing thought from Marzano about evidence:

It is certainly true that research provides us with a guidance as to the nature of effective teaching, and yet I strongly believe that there is not (nor will there ever be) a formula for effective teaching. [...] The best research can do is tell us which strategies have a good chance (i.e. high probability) of working well with students. Individual classroom teachers must determine which strategies to employ with the right students at the right time. In effect, a good part of effective teaching is an art. (pp. 4-5)

Where is the evidence for SBG? All around us!