Abstract
The study set out to explore the bases on which the school assesses pupils’ educability and which show up as pupil categorizations manifested in seating order. The research was carried out with ethnographic methods and focused on the classroom situations of one first-grade class during one autumn term. The points of interest were those changes and episodes in which the seating order organized the action. Four stages was the spontaneous order created by the pupils themselves on their first day of school; the seating order of the other three stages was set up by the teacher on the basis of mixing boys and girls, of reading skills, of settledness, of capability for pair-work, and of “interpersonal chemistry”. It was found that the teacher made an active use of seating order as a pedagogical instrument. The pupils seemed to adopt the classification criteria and used them in their talk, but the application of these criteria, especially gender and interpersonal relations, was a constant source of dispute between the pupils and the teacher. It was concluded that seating order manifests, implements, and conveys to the pupils important symbolic elements of the representation of educability endorsed by the school.
Résumé
L’étude propose d’explorer les bases selon lesquelles l’école évalue l’éducabilité des élèves; elle met en exergue comment les diverses catégorisations d’élèves se manifestent dans cet ordre de disposition. La recherche à été menée avec des méthodes ethnographiques et s’est focalisée sur les situations de la classe dans une classe du premier degré durant le semestre d’automne. Les faits marquants ont été les divers changements et épisodes dans lesquels la disposition a organisé l’action. Quatre méthodes ont été utilisées dans la désignation de l’ordre des places. La première a été celle adoptée spontanément par les élèves eux-mêmes des le premier jour de classe. La mise en place des trois autres a été organisée par l’instituteur, selon les critères suivants: mixer les garçons et les filles, capacités de lecture, d’attention, capacité de travailler en duo, et sympathie mutuelle. On a trouve que l’instituteur a utilisé activement la disposition des élèves en classe comme instrument pédagogique. Les élèves ont paru adopter les critères de classification et les ont utilisés dans leur conversation. Cependant l’application de ces critères, spécialement la mixité et les relations personnelles étaient une source constante de dispute entre l’instituteur et les élèves. On en a conclu que l’ordre de disposition des élèves en classe manifeste, produit et apporte aux élèves des éléments symboliques importants de la représentation de l’éducabilité supportée par l’école.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Babad, E., & Ezer, H. (1993). Seating locations of sociometrically measured student types: Methodological and substantive issues.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 75–87.
Bennett, N., & Blundell, D. (1983). Quantity and quality of work in rows and classroom groups.Educational Psychology, 3, 93–105.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988).Ideological dilemmas. A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage Publications.
Bossert, S.T. (1979).Tasks and social relationships in classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Christensen, P., & James, A. (2000).Research with children: Perspectives and practices. London: Falmer Press.
Cone, C.A., & Perez, B.A. (1986). Peer groups and the organization of classroom space.Human Organization, 45, 80–88.
Corsaro, W.A. (1990). The underlife of the nursery school: Young children’s social representations of adult rules. In G. Duveen & B. Lloyd (Eds.),Social representations and the development of knowledge (pp. 11–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corsaro, W.A. (1996). Transitions in early childhood: The promise of comparative, longitudinal ethnography. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R.A. Shweder (Eds.),Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 419–457). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Corsaro, W.A., & Molinari, L. (2000). Priming events and Italian children’s transition from preschool to elementary school: Representation and action.Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 16–33.
Danziger, K. (1990).Constructing the subject. Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
De Oliveira, Z., & Valsiner, J. (1997). Play and imagination: The psychological construction of novelty. In A. Fogel, M. Lyra, & J. Valsiner (Eds.),Dynamics and indeterminism in developmental and social processes (pp. 119–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Droege, K.L., & Stipek, D.J. (1993). Children’s use of dispositions to predict classmates’ behavior.Developmental Psychology, 29, 646–654.
Francis, B. (2000). The gendered subject: Students’ subject preferences and discussions of gender and subject ability.Oxford Review of Education, 26, 35–48.
Fry, P. S. (1984). Teachers’ conceptions of students’ intelligence and intelligent functioning: A cross-sectional study of elementary, secondary and tertiary level teachers.International Journal of Psychology, 19, 457–474.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995).Ethnography. Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
Hart, S. (1998). A sorry tail: Ability, pedagogy and educational reform.British Journal of Educational Studies, 46, 153–168.
Hastings, N., & Schwieso, J. (1995). Tasks and tables: The effects of seating arrangements on task engagement in primary classrooms.Educational Research, 37, 279–291.
Jackson, P.W. (1968).Life in classrooms: New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc.
Lahelma, E., & Gordon, T. (1997). First day in secondary school: Learning to be a “professional pupil”.Educational Research and Evaluation, 3, 119–139.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lloyd, B., & Duveen, G. (1992).Gender identities and education. The impact of starting school. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Miller, P.J. (1996). Instantiating culture through discourse practices: Some personal reflections on socialization and how to study it. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R.A. Shweder (Eds.),Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 183–204). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, D., & Glynn, T. (1984). Variations in question rate as a function of position in the classroom.Educational Psychology, 4, 233–248.
Ojakangas, M. (1997).Lapsuus ja auktoriteetti. Pedagogisen vallan historia Snellmanista Koskenniemeen [Childhood and authority. History of pedagogy power from Snellman to Koskenniemi]. Helsinki: Tutkijaliitto.
Rist, R.C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education.Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411–450.
Rosenfield, P., Lambert, N.M., & Black, A. (1985). Desk arrangement effects on pupil classroom behavior.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 101–108.
Rosenholtz, S., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or social construction?Review of Educational Research, 54, 31–63.
Räty, H., & Snellman, L. (1997). Children’s images of an intelligent person.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 773–784.
Salo, U.-M. (1995). Koulun sosiaalista elämää tutkimassa [Investigating social life in school].Nuorisotutkimus, 4, 2–8.
Selleri, P., Carugati, F., & Scappini, E. (1995). What marks should I give? A model of the organization of teachers’ judgements of their pupils.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 25–40.
Stipek, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of intellectual competence.Child Development, 60, 521–538.
Thorne, B. (1993).Gender play. Girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Valsiner, J. (1989).Human development and culture, The social nature of personality and its study. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Walden, R., & Walkerdine, V. (1985).Girls and mathematics. From primary to secondary schooling. Bedford Way Papers 24. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Wheldall, K., & Lam, Y.Y. (1987). Rows versus tables. II. The effects of two classroom seating arrangements on classroom disruption rate, on-task behaviour and teacher behaviour in three special school classes.Educational Psychology, 7, 303–312.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The study was supported by the national research project “The effectiveness of the School”, organized by the Academy of Finland.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kasanen, K., Räty, H. & Snellman, L. Seating order as a symbolic arrangement. Eur J Psychol Educ 16, 209–222 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173026
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173026