How Teacher Positioning in the Classroom Affects the On-Task Behavior of Students Author: Annabelle Myers and Sofia Anderson Editor: Dr. Eucabeth Odhiambo Assessment and Evaluation of Student Behavior in Relation to Teacher Positioning in the Classroom A vital part of one s effectiveness as a teacher is to motivate and help students learn content matter. The teacher s positioning impacts how students learn, receive instruction, and maintain on-task behavior. Students learn information by participating in class, taking notes, listening, and asking questions. In order for a teacher to motivate his or her students to learn, he or she must establish a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and make himself or herself attractive and engaging to the learners. Students will succeed in the classroom when they receive the support they need to be successful. The positioning of the teacher in the classroom indicates whether he or she is enthusiastic about the subject matter, cares about the students progress, is motivated to help students learn content material, and has high expectations for the success of his or her students. Furthermore, the teacher s involvement with the class contributes to his or her professional demeanor and demonstrates to students that the new material they are expected to learn is deliberately taught and should be taken seriously. On the other hand, when the teacher is not engaged with the class, distracted with a computer or telephone call, or leaves the room, students are less motivated to learn and more tempted to participate in off task behavior (Cruickshank, Jenkins, Metcalf, 2009, p. 339-354). Eucabeth Odhiambo Methodology We sought to answer the question: How does the teacher s positioning in the classroom affect the on-task behavior of students? We defined on task on-task behavior as occasions when the child is engaging in behavior that is directly related to the activity established by the teacher. Similarly, we defined off-task behavior as occasions when the child is engaging in a behavior that is not related to the activity established by the teacher. Typically, this term is used to refer to relatively low-level forms of behavior, such as daydreaming, playing with materials or equipment, talking to others, and wandering around the room (Merrett & Wheldall, 1990, p. 124). To assess the impact a teacher s positioning in the classroom has on the on-task and offtask behavior of the students, we observed and collected date from the classroom. We focused our attention on off-task behaviors Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 1
of students, described the location of the teacher at this time, and then noted if she changed her positioning in the classroom to address the off task behavior of students. More specifically, we completed a table that answered the questions pertaining to: (1) the number of students who were off-task; (2) the teachers positioning in the classroom when the students were off task; (3) whether the teacher repositioned herself (4) the new position the teacher assumed, if she repositioned herself (5) whether the new position of the teacher resulted in a decreased number of students who were off task, and by what numerical figure. We collected our date using the observation table below: Table: Number of students off task: Teacher s positioning in classroom, when children were off task: Did the teacher change her position? Yes or No If yes, where did the teacher reposition herself? Did number of off-task students decrease? If Yes, by how many? We each conducted our own observations of our host teacher during a two day period in a third grade classroom. Additionally, we experimented with different positioning while we each taught a lesson on the second day and observed the impact various positions had on the on-task behavior and motivation of students. We recorded our observations in a table similar to the one above. At the end of the two day period, we compared our observations. We analyzed and drew conclusions about the relationship between teacher positioning in the classroom and the ability of the students to stay on task, based on the observations of the teachers and our lesson. Review of Related Literature Research has demonstrated that time spent on task is consistently related to the amount of information students learn. Students learn more when both teachers and students spend more time actively engaged in academic tasks (Brush, 1997, p. 30). The U.S. Department of Education reported in Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 2
2002 that, students typically increase their attention to a task and show improved compliance when the teacher is in close physical proximity (1). Therefore, it is recommended that teachers hold the students attention by standing or sitting near them before giving directions or engaging in discussion and that the teacher circulates around the room to keep students focused during group activities (Ford, Olmi, Edwards, & Tingstrom, 2001, p. 1). Our related literature further pointed us to research conducted on the areas of the classroom where students are most likely to interact with the material they are expected to learn. The term action zone, or T zone, is used to refer to an area where the teacher is most likely to interact with his or her students. The arrangement of the classroom, and specifically the desks, has an immense impact on the action zone. A study conducted by M. Gail Jones at the School of Education at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill conducted observations between interactions with students in the action zone compared to students located outside of the action zone in the fifty-six physical science and chemistry classes. The researcher observed that students located in the action zone, dominated class interactions and received more direct questions, teacher-afforded conversation, and sustaining feedback (1). Additionally, nearly one third of the students located outside of the action zone did not interact and were silent (Jones, 1989). It is recommended that children who are the most likely to become distracted should be placed in forward and central locations of the action zone. This will decrease the likelihood that these students will be off task and improve their degree of interaction with the teacher. It is also the responsibility of the teacher to be cognizant of the students located farther away from the action zone by circulating around the classroom to keep them involved. Additionally, the teacher should make eye contact and call on those positioned farther away to keep them actively engaged in the lesson (Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber, 2008, p. 325-327). For optimal results, teachers must gain and hold the attention of their students throughout the lesson. To accomplish this, teachers must interact with students in a variety of ways by mandating group projects, individual work, and classroom discussions (Grouws & Cebulla, 2000). Furthermore, teachers should also vary the ways in which they reinforce or praise students for desirable performance or inform them about their progress. Smiling at students, maintaining eye contact, moving closer, laughing, and gesturing toward students often can be reinforcing and convey support and interest. More explicitly, you can give students rewards for desirable performance. Verbal praise, recognition of outstanding work, free time, or tokens are examples (Cruickshank, Jenkins, Metcalf, 2009, p. 364). The involvement of the teacher and the support he or she offers to students in the class are vital to capturing and holding the interest of the students in the content material they are expected to learn, in addition to demonstrating the importance of the material to the students. Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 3
Results Our results were directly related to on task and off task behavior of students. We observed the teacher in three principal positions in the classroom at the times when students displayed the most off-task behaviors. Our results were recorded in the table below. Table: Number of students off task: Teacher s positioning in classroom, when children were off task: Did the teacher change her position? Yes or No If yes, where did the teacher reposition herself? Did number of off-task students decrease? If Yes, by how many? 4 / 17: Moving around, playing with items in hands, and talking to those near them Rocking chair in front of group, while group was sitting on carpet No No, removed students from group and further from her Yes, by 1, student removed from group 8/17: Out of their seats, talking with others, playing with friends, walking around classroom At her desk, with group or at her computer or organizing papers and grading No No, she gave two verbal warnings for students to get on task and then returned to her activity Yes, temporarily after the verbal warning, but soon returned to students being off task once teacher withdrew attention from them 10/17: Students ran around room chasing each other, talking to each other in loud voices, and not completing work Left the room to speak to neighboring teacher for approximately 2-3 minutes. Yes Teacher reentered the room Yes, due to the teacher reentering room, commanding student attention and giving a new set of direction Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 4
We observed four out of seventeen students moving around the room, playing with items in their hands, and talking to those near them, during instruction time. The teacher was sitting in her rocking chair and positioned in front of the students who were seated on the carpet in front of the rocking chair. The teacher made no change in her positioning during the lesson, or while students were off-task. However, the teacher did implement a change in the positioning of the off task student by moving him or her from the group and instructing him or her to take a break. Therefore, the student was farther from the teacher, and further away from the action zone. The next significant observation recorded eight of the seventeen students participating in off task behavior. The offtask behaviors displayed included children got up and out of their seats, talked with other students, played with friends, and walked around the classroom. The teacher at this point was positioned at her desk organizing papers and grading, while the students were supposed to be completing graphic organizers a story they had just read. A few students approached her desk with questions. However, the majority of the students remained at their seats and showed visible confusion about the assignment and was unsure how to proceed, which resulted in students entertaining themselves with non-work related activities. While many of the students were off-task, the teacher did not reposition herself. Instead, the teacher gave two verbal warnings for students to get back to work and finish the assignment if they wanted to have recess. There was a temporary decrease in the number of students off task after the verbal warnings, but the students soon returned to off-task behaviors once the teacher had returned her attention to her computer and papers. Although the classroom arrangement allowed for the teacher to walk around the room and have a variety of action zones, she chose not to utilize them. As a result, students did not finish their assignments on time and had to either stay inside during recess or complete them at home. Lastly we observed the majority of the class off-task, ten out of seventeen students, off task when the teacher exited the classroom. The students were observed running around the room, chasing each other, talking to each other in loud voices, and not completing any work. The teacher was out of the room for approximately 2 to 3 minutes, conversing with a teacher from a neighboring classroom. When she reentered the classroom, stood at the door and scolded the students for their behavior she commanded their attention with her tone of voice. The number of students off task decreased to zero due to the severity of the teacher s response and her central positioning in front of the class while issuing a new set of directions. Her positioning helped her to command the students attention and get them redirected to the next activity. The teacher then positioned herself in the front of the classroom where she could see all students at their desks and ensure that they were on task. On task behaviors were only observed when the teacher was in a position that kept Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 5
her involved in the task, near the students and or exercising productive actions zones. Most off task behaviors arose and increased when the teacher withdrew her positioning to her desk and away from the students and task at hand. For our lesson, we tried to correct the problems we witnessed through our observations, and included a variety of positioning and action zones in our individual lessons. Sofia addressed the students in a standing position in front of the students throughout the lesson, circulated the classroom to ensure students were completing their work, and administered the informal oral examination to each individual student. Annabelle also stood in front of the class while giving instructions, moved behind the students as they did a hands-on activity, circulated the classroom while students were completing their work, and administered the informal oral examination to each student. During both lessons, students remained enthusiastic about the lesson, were able to complete their work, and fulfilled the objective of the lesson. Our results show that our host teacher s choice of positioning in the classroom did little to nothing to keep her students on-task. Her positioning, and lack of repositioning, offered ways for her students to become and, at many times, stay off-task. This off-task behavior resulted in confusion about the lesson and a small number of completed assignments from the students. Our positioning during our lessons demonstrated that we were interested in our students and enthusiastic our lessons, which resulted in the students retaining the information they were required learn. Discussion According to Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber (2008), students located in the action zone show an improved degree of interaction with the teacher. We each made sure to vary action zones to keep all students engaged and on task during our lessons. In Annabelle s case, she made sure to change her positioning to target different action zones throughout the lesson. She began by standing in front of the class at the easel where she administered directions while the students sat on the carpet directly in front of her. This allowed students to clearly understand what was required of them during the lesson. Then, she changed her positioning to observe the students from behind while they were participating in a hands-on activity. The hands-on activity allowed students to interact directly with the lesson while still under the supervision of the instructor. After, Annabelle moved to a standing position in front of them at the white board while instructing the students to complete a worksheet. The students remained on-task and quiet for the instructions. Next, Annabelle had the students return to their desks during which time she walked around the classroom to insure that the worksheets were being completed thoroughly and correctly. This change in action zones demonstrated to the students that they needed to remain on-task because Annabelle was aware of the progress they were making. Finally, Annabelle visited each group of students for the informal evaluation, asking each Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 6
member of the group to correctly answer the essential question. This allowed Annabelle to speak directly with each student in the class, further enlarging the action zone and the number of students engaged in the lesson. The changes in her positioning kept the students motivated to learn and curious as to what would come next during the lesson. This was evidenced in the excitement of the students and the fact that they could correctly identify the meaning of a procedure by the end of the lesson. In Sofia s lesson, she began by having the students gather on the carpet for instruction, a position they were comfortable assuming. Sofia then varied the action zone by standing in front of the class, which commanded the students attention and clearly showed her as an authority figure. While she read the two books to the class for the comparison lesson, she moved from the middle to the right, back to the middle, and to the left of the group seated on the carpet. During the lesson, all students faced forward and had remained focused on the books as Sophia moved in the front of the classroom. The students remained on task due to the instructor s moving around and inviting the children to be a part of the lesson with her positioning. After the introduction to the lesson, the children were asked to move from the carpet to their desks, and Sofia then moved to the white board where she had the students volunteer to assist in filling out the Venn diagram on the board, while they copied the information on their graphic organizers. Sofia faced the students and when talking to the class, moved closer to them and turned to the volunteer. To make sure all children were on task during this part of the lesson, she also moved towards each group to make sure students were engaged and on task. The students eagerly volunteered and participated in the lesson by doing what was expected of them. The variety of action zones kept the students attention on the instructor and kept them on task. Cruickshank, et al. (2009) states that a teacher s positioning demonstrates that he or she is engaged in the lesson and concerned for the progress of the students. We each remained engaged with the students and closely monitored their progress during the lesson and during individual work to show that we were interested in their progress. During Annabelle s lesson, she stood in front of the students when she clearly stated the objective of the lesson. She further stated that the students would be required to correctly define the word procedure by the end of the lesson. This positioning asserted Annabelle as an authority figure and demonstrated to the students that this information was important. During the hands-on activity, Annabelle aided students while they made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. When the students were required to make the sandwich a second time, using only the steps they had recorded as a class, Annabelle demonstrated that if the students did not explicitly write, Open the jar of peanut butter, the whole jar of peanut butter would have to be placed on the sandwich. Her involvement in the lesson showed that she was engaged and involved with their learning experience. Then Annabelle Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 7
circulated around the room while the students were completing their worksheets to ensure that the students understood the material while they were working individually. Finally, Annabelle distributed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to students who correctly completed the worksheet and defined procedure a set of directions. This position demonstrated care about their work. The fact that she demonstrated her interest and remained engaged in the lesson motivated students to learn the material, so they were able to correctly explain the meaning of a procedure. During Sofia s lesson, she stood in front of the class and presented the students with one of four words at a time and had students discuss or pair share with a neighbor what they believed the meanings of the words to be. Sofia had a flash card for each word that she showed the class and walked from one side of the group to the other side to make sure all students saw it and were ready to participate in the discussion. She asked for volunteers to define the word; she then gave the written definition and had students repeat the word and the meaning. This process was done for each of the four terms. The students were informed that at the end of the lesson they would have to define the four terms when the flash cards were shown to them. The final part of the lesson included individual work at each student s desk. Sofia made sure to show the students that she cared about them and their learning by moving around the room and checking the students work as they worked on it. She drew a star on each student s paper when it was correctly completed. She walked around to each group and announced that those students had completed their work and had earned their stars. Sofia also stood at each group and had the students hold up their pictures related to the lesson to share it with the class. With Sofia s staying involved in the lesson and positioning herself well and at one time or another close to each group, it showed her enthusiasm for the students to do well and to be involved. At the end of the lesson, it was evident that the students had learned and remained on task because they could all orally define the four terms presented at the beginning of the lesson and used throughout the lesson to achieve mastery of the terms. The varying of the action zones kept the students engaged and allowed for the learning of the terms. Recommendations We recommend that the teacher hold the attention of the students by standing or sitting near the students during a lesson while giving directions or engaging in discussion. We also recommend that the teacher circulate around the room to keep students focused during group activities and individual work. We further recommend that the teacher use a variety of action zones to keep students on task during group or independent work in the classroom to distinguish her as the authority figure. The teacher would benefit from using her positioning in the classroom to demonstrate her interest in the lesson and involvement with her students. Staying stationary or Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 8
moving to, and staying at, her desk during group or individual work will result with the teacher s appearing disengaged and allow for off-task behaviors. Finally, our host teacher noticed our variation of action zones and complimented each of us on our movement around the classroom, specifically when we went to each group individually to assess student knowledge of the subject matter. References Bohlin L., Durwin C.C., Reese-Weber M.. (2008) EdPsych: Modules. 1 st Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 325-327. Brush, T. (1997). The Effects of Group Composition on Achievement and Time on Task for Students Completing ILS Activities in Cooperative Pairs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30, 2-17. Cruickshank D.R., Jenkins D.B., & Metcalf K.K. (2009). The Act of Teaching. 5 th Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill. Grouws, D., & Cebulla, K. (2000). Improving Student Achievement in Mathematics. Brussels: International Bureau of Education. Jones, V., & Jones, L. (1995). Comprehensive classroom management (4 th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Meadows, N.B. (1993). A philosophy of teaching, not just managing behaviors. Teaching Education, 6(1), 93-99. Meadows, N.B. & Melloy, K.J. (1996). Behavior management as a curriculum for students with emotional and behavior disorders Source: Preventing School Failure. Vol. 40 Issue 3 P. 124. Merrett, F and Wheldall, K (1990) Positive Teaching in the Primary School. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Authors: Annabelle Myers and Sofia Anderson are Juniors of Elementary Education Major at Shippensburg University in spring 2010. Curwin, R., & Mendler, A. (1998). Discipline with Dignity. Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ford, Olmi, Edwards, & Tingstrom, 2001; Gettinger & Seibert, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2004. Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University 9