Class discussion chart
When assessing engagement many factors must be accounted for. Evidence as seen through things like eye contact, body language, on-task time and class participation must all be assessed. Here, a focus on desk arrangements and evidence of student engagement are noted through participation. I wanted to see how participation changed in my third period social science class depending on where I was in the room. I also wanted to quantify how many and how often students participate in class discussions.
The normal seating arrangement in my third period class is 5 rows of 3 desks each on the left side of the room and 5 rows of 3 desks on the right side of the room. The rows face each other instead of facing the front of the room and there are 3 desks in the back of the room facing the front. The current arrangement sets up very well for group work since desks can be turned around or grouped together quickly. |
As is evident by the chart reflecting participation during a standard lesson, there is no real pattern visible. My assumption, before doing this participation chart, was that seats 2, 26 and 27 would have been the largest contributors in class. The students that sit in those seats have been the strongest contributors the entire semester. It wasn’t until consciously keeping track of participation that I found out seats 6, 15, 16 and 22 were so active.
The chart also shows the 3 locations I am most often in. I pace up and down the aisle often but when I stop, it is most often in either “A” or “B”. When class begins I am usually in location “C” so as to greet the students upon their arrival.
Research reveals that teachers usually get best participation from students in their field of view. As evident from the field of view triangles drawn from each location, all of the students that participate often are at some point in my main field of view from at least one of the 3 locations. Only 1 desk, 26, is in my field of view at all 3 locations and only 1 desk, 4, is seemingly never in my field of view. What this proves is that students who get little attention from me either by eye contact or proximity (by this I mean students who only receive attention from 1 location), rarely participate (ex. 1, 3, 7, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34).
Drawing this back to my Inquiry question, the evidence here shows that participation is a good determinant of engagement in the lesson. I make this statement based on the fact that the students who most often receive attention either by proximity or eye contact participate most frequently. They are the students who ask the most questions and volunteer comments to things we are talking about in class. The largest contributors in class, except for seat 4, all receive either eye contact or proximity at no less than 2 locations in the room. Looking at the average, it is understandable to say there are extremes on both sides of the spectrum; seat 4 receives little eye contact and proximity yet participates often and seats 22 and 23 both receive a lot of eye contact and proximity yet participate very little. After collecting this data, I believe that participation, while a good determinant of engagement in a lesson, cannot be a sole determinant of engagement.
The chart also shows the 3 locations I am most often in. I pace up and down the aisle often but when I stop, it is most often in either “A” or “B”. When class begins I am usually in location “C” so as to greet the students upon their arrival.
Research reveals that teachers usually get best participation from students in their field of view. As evident from the field of view triangles drawn from each location, all of the students that participate often are at some point in my main field of view from at least one of the 3 locations. Only 1 desk, 26, is in my field of view at all 3 locations and only 1 desk, 4, is seemingly never in my field of view. What this proves is that students who get little attention from me either by eye contact or proximity (by this I mean students who only receive attention from 1 location), rarely participate (ex. 1, 3, 7, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34).
Drawing this back to my Inquiry question, the evidence here shows that participation is a good determinant of engagement in the lesson. I make this statement based on the fact that the students who most often receive attention either by proximity or eye contact participate most frequently. They are the students who ask the most questions and volunteer comments to things we are talking about in class. The largest contributors in class, except for seat 4, all receive either eye contact or proximity at no less than 2 locations in the room. Looking at the average, it is understandable to say there are extremes on both sides of the spectrum; seat 4 receives little eye contact and proximity yet participates often and seats 22 and 23 both receive a lot of eye contact and proximity yet participate very little. After collecting this data, I believe that participation, while a good determinant of engagement in a lesson, cannot be a sole determinant of engagement.